Journalism Trust Initiative; Trusted News Initiative; Project Origin; The Trust Project

Having an open, independent and free media is essential to any functioning society. However, that is not the case here. Groups like the “Journalism Trust Initiative” sounds like something that might have been concocted in the Soviet Union. But no, it’s operational within the free world.

1. Important Links
RSF Sues Facebook, Claims Too LITTLE Censorship‐news‐complicated‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot

2. “News Trust” Groups To Investigate

There is something Orwellian or dystopian about organizations that have to stress so frequently that they are trustworthy sources. These are groups which are supposed to be doing this in journalism.

  • Journalism Trust Initiative
    1. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
    2. European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
    3. Agence France Presse (AFP)
  • Trusted News Initiative
  • Project Origin
    1. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
    2. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
    3. Radio-Canada
    4. Microsoft
    5. New York Times
  • The Trust Project
    1. Sally Lehrman
    2. Microsoft Defending Democracy Program
    3. The Peg and Rick Young Foundation
    4. the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
    5. Trustworthy Journalism Initiative of Craig Newmark Philanthropies
    6. Bing
    7. Facebook
    8. Google

Who can forget the Q-Anon saying to “trust the plan”? After all, there was supposed to be some secret army ready to take out the Deep State, and put all of the pedophiles in jail. Also, “Operation Trust” was a scheme in the 1920s to keep the Communists in power in the Soviet Union, by letting people think there was a plot already underway.

This may seem crazy, but perhaps these “trust” groups operate in much the same way, and to achieve essentially the same purpose of deflating resistance to the current power structure.

There is another thread that runs through these NGOs. They all oppose what they call “misinformation” surrounding legitimate questions of this “pandemic”. Each one supports the official narrative.

3. Who’s Behind Journalism Trust Initiative

  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in partnership with:
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
  • Agence France Presse (AFP)

Reporters Without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union, and Agence France Presse are the 3 main groups behind the Journalism Trust Initiative. That being said, their organization has grown considerably since the founding in 1985.

Here is a list of selected participants in the development stage of the JTI Standard included, in alphabetical order. Note: these names came directly from their website.

  • All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK, Russia)
  • Associated Press (USA)
  • Association of Taiwanese Journalists (Taiwan)
  • Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM, Italy)
  • BBC (UK)
  • City University of New York (CUNY, USA)
  • Civil (USA)
  • Deutsche Presse Agentur (dpa, Germany)
  • Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)
  • European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC)
  • Facebook (USA)
  • Fondation Hirondelle (Switzerland)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU, the Netherlands)
  • Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland)
  • Global Disinformation Index (GDI)
  • Google (USA)
  • The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS, UK)
  • Internews (UK)
  • Journalists Association of South Korea (JAK, South Korea)
  • NewsGuard (USA)
  • Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK, Norway)
  • RTL Group (Luxembourg)
  • Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ, USA)
  • Swiss Press Council (Switzerland)
  • Tagesspiegel (Germany)
  • Tamedia (Switzerland)
  • Thomson Foundation (UK)
  • TT Nyhetsbyrån (Sweden)
  • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Some of these names should immediately stand out, such as Facebook, Google and UNESCO. Yes, 3 of the most powerful organizations are involved in this. As for the 3 behind JTI:

(a) Founded in 1985, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) became one of the world’s leading NGOs in the defence and promotion of freedom of information. RSF is registered in France as a non- profit organization based in Paris, with consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the International Organization of the Francophonie (OIF). Our foreign sections, bureaux in ten cities, and a network of correspondents in 130 countries….

(b) The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the world’s foremost alliance of public service media (PSM). Our mission is to make PSM indispensable. We represent 117 media organizations in 56 countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and have an additional 34 Associates in Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Americas. Our Members operate nearly 2,000 television and radio channels alongside numerous online platforms….

(c) Founded in 1835, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the third largest international news agency in the world delivering fast, accurate, in-depth coverage of the events shaping our world, from conflicts to politics, economics, sports, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health, science and technology.

That is how they describe themselves. While there is nothing wrong with people in the industry collaborating, the concern comes when viewpoint diversity is stifled. Legitimate debate and contrary points of view can simply be disregarded.

We live in an era of the grand de-enlightenment.
On the Internet, algorithms tend to amplify the extremes – sensationalism, rumours, hate and falsehoods. Opinion and beliefs trump facts. The rule-makers in big-tech are not accountable to anyone. The rules of the game are in- transparent and change all the time.
On this rocky, tilting and ever turning playing field, journalism is unfairly disadvantaged, losing reputation, reach and revenues – which renders it even less competitive.
That logic needs to be reversed. Democracy dies without a fact-based discourse.

Everything in this section sounds entirely reasonable, and valid. The internet does tend to promote fake news and sensationalized nonsense over real journalism. And true, democracy is dead without a fact based discourse. However, what this group finds acceptable does not match with many others.

4. RSF Sues Facebook, Too LITTLE Censoring

This Complaint, filed in France, should terrify people. Reporters Without Borders is upset that Facebook isn’t doing enough to censor so-called misinformation on its platform. To repeat: the allegation is that Facebook SHOULD DO MORE to censor people spreading different views on the so-called pandemic.

Facebook has been notorious for its revised Terms of Service, and deplatforming, but that apparently wasn’t enough. RSF is taking action against a member of its own group.

Note: the Complaint itself doesn’t seem to be posted. RSF has been contacted for a copy of it.

For an example of how extensively Facebook already censors, consider this: Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged to Canadian politicians that over 16 million pieces of “misinformation” had already been removed. But that apparently isn’t good enough.

5. Trusted News Initiative (TNI)

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections. The TNI complements existing programmes partners have in place.
The partners currently within the TNI are: AP, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post.
The TNI cooperative framework has been jointly developed amongst partners, and relates to only the most serious disinformation, which threatens life or the integrity of the electoral process. This is entirely separate from and does not in any way affect the editorial stance of any partner organisation.

At least we’re getting some honesty here. The Trusted News Initiative was set up primarily to counter “misinformation” of a serious nature. It specifically cites elections and this “pandemic”.

Although not explicitly stated, having these groups band together in such a way would be quite effective at censoring legitimate information. Of course, it would always be passed of as an emergency.

A cynic might wonder if Trump intentionally went on about election conspiracy theories in order to help justify the collusion of these “independent” media outlets. Perhaps this is reaching, but it would explain a lot.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, Facebook and Google are both part of the Trusted News Initiative.

6. Project Origin — Microsoft A Partner

Project Origin was established to provide a platform for collaboration and discussion among a set of partners on the creation and adoption of a new media provenance tracking process, aimed initially at news and information content. At scale, this process could encompass traditional publishing (electronic and print), information technology, social media and consumer software. We are planning for a multiparty stakeholder, cross-organisational collaboration around combating disinformation.

Positive authentication of the provenance of legitimate news stories will help by making it easier to identify manipulated and synthetic audiovisual content. The Origin process is conceptually designed to work with text, video, images and audio content.

The Origin collaborators have agreed to develop a framework for an engineering approach, initially focusing on video, images, and audio. We hope this work could be helpful in developing a global standard for establishing content integrity.

CBC/Radio-Canada, the British Broadcasting Corporation and Microsoft are working together with what is called “Project Origin“. The stated goal is to be able to find the origin and background of news that is making its way onto public domains.

Never mind that Microsoft is heavily involved in ID2020, or that the BBC receives regular financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Forget about Gates’ ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Surely, this organization is about promoting truth and accuracy in media.

Project Origin offers a more technical way of finding the sources, such as tracing the image, or similar word patterns, or seeing where else it has been published. Consider it a form of cyber-sleuthing for content flagged as “misinformation”.

Media Provenance Countering Synthetic Media

1. C. Wardle, “Fake news. It’s complicated”, First Draft, Feb. 2017. Available at:‐news‐complicated.
2. “Setting the industry standard for digital content attribution”, The Content Authenticity Initiative, 2019.
Available at:
3. The Partnership on AI. Available at:
4. “AI and Media Integrity Steering Committee”, The Partnership on AI, 2019. Available at:‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee.
5. G. Barber, “Deepfakes Are Getting Better”, WIRED Magazine, May 2019. Available at‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot.
6. “News Provenance Project”, New York Times, 2018. Available at:
7. P. England et. al., “AMP: Authentication of Media via Provenance”, arXiv:2001.07886, Jan. 2020.
Available at
8. M Russinovich e.t al., “CCF: A Framework for Building Confidential Verifiable Replicated Services”,
Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR‐TR‐2019‐16, Apr. 2019. Available at‐us/research/publication/ccf‐a‐framework‐for‐building‐confidential‐verifiable‐replicated‐services.

Project Origin does post a research paper going into extensive detail about how such a system may be organized. It would incorporate AI into it, flagging content deemed suspicious. How the metadata is actually used is explained in considerable deta in video as well.

7. The Trust Project, Social Media Grouping

The Trust Project is an organization of some 200 media outlets which conform to certain preset standards of journalism. The propagation and promotion of the their work across social media in influenced by Bing, Facebook and Google. Among the Canadian members are:

  • CBC
  • CTV
  • Globe & Mail
  • The Canadian Press
  • Toronto Star

The Trust Project does have its 8 Trust Indicators listings, and they are quite good. The problem is that these organizations don’t practice what they preach in terms of differing views. Specifically, contradictory information on this “pandemic” narrative are censored, and otherwise smeared as conspiracy theories.

At least on paper, there is nothing objectionable about this NGO. The issues arise when their behaviour in practice is considered.

The Trust Project references the 1947 Hitchens Commission to base this on. The report claims that democracy is in danger if there isn’t a free media, and that control in the hands of too few people is a danger. Instead of reading this as a warning, it appears to have become a roadmap, given how much media collusion we now have.

These trust groups function like a modern day Mockingbird Media. It really is one group that controls nearly everything.

8. CBC’s Efforts To “Rebuild Trust”

About a month ago, CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, published an article that stated trust in it was waning. It emphasized that efforts were being undertaken to rebuild that trust, and went into significant detail.

  • CBC News is a member of the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), an effort to establish globally recognized standards of trustworthiness in news, led by Journalists without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union and Agence France-Presse. As part of a recent pilot, we submitted a 70-page questionnaire on our practices for an independent review and hope to share the results in the near future.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has been a member of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) since its inception in 2019. The TNI brings together global news organizations and tech platforms to combat disinformation. It created a real-time, early warning system to flag serious disinformation that may pose a threat to life or the integrity of the electoral process. It has been activated for the general elections in the U.K., Taiwan, Myanmar and the U.S., as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The TNI will host a Trust in News conference later this month.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has joined with the BBC, the New York Times and Microsoft in support of an effort to develop Project Origin, an open standard for confirming the authenticity of content from trusted sources to fight “deep fake” video news generated by artificial intelligence. This is a new application of established technology to digitally verify the authenticity of our news content when it appears on other online platforms.
  • CBC News is part of the Trust Project, an international partnership with tech and media companies to increase transparency and accuracy in online news. CBC policies on transparent labels, corrections, bylines and links to our JSP on our digital pages have become a model for other partners in the project.

While there are some legitimate steps in the article that CBC can take, it seems strange to partner up with so many other groups, such as the ones listed above. It takes away from the independence (or even the illusion of independence), to be so tightly interwoven with these “trust” groups.

CBC does have its own “directory” of trusted news groups, which seems Orwellian. Part of Canadians’ tax dollars are going towards creating a database of outlets that will not stray from permitted narratives.

9. Media, Social Media, Influence And Subsidies

CBC claims it wants to improve the trust it has among Canadians. However, it doesn’t raise any eyebrows when something like this happens: Dominic LeBlanc openly suggesting passing laws to combat “misinformation”. Since there is ideological alignment, this chilling statement goes largely unchallenged.

It seems that outlets like CBC wish to “appear” to be trustworthy, but have no interest in conducting themselves in ways that genuinely foster trust. How bad is the media bias?

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) True North Canada A Fake Charity, Subsidized By Public
(3) Government Subsidizes Postmedia To Ensure Positive Coverage
(4) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(5) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(6) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(7) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(8) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(9) DisinfoWatch Has Ties To Atlas Network/Koch, Liberal Party
(10) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies
(11) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(12) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx
(13) Bill C-10; Open Collusion Between Ottawa, Social Media
(14) Facebook; Kevin Chan; Peter Donolo; Rachel Curran; Erin O’Toole

The unfortunate reality is that there are many legitimate reasons to not trust the media in Canada, and elsewhere. Coming together in these groups does little to conceal the lack of genuine interest in journalism. While it’s true that professionals so have to sell to make a living, it shouldn’t come at the expense of their integrity.

Elections Canada: Fundraising Isn’t Okay When EDAs Shut Down For No Financials

Recently, members of the PPC were spouting out the talking points that dozens of their EDAs (or electoral district association), were shut down to consolidate into fewer organizations. But that isn’t true. They were shut down for not filing financial disclosures, as required by Elections Canada.

1. Important Links

Canada Gazette, Volume 155, Number 13
Canada Elections Act: Sections 465, 466, 468(4)

2. Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 155, Number 13

Deregistration of registered electoral district associations
In accordance with sections 465 and 466 and subsection 468(4) of the Canada Elections Act, the following associations are deregistered, effective on March 31, 2021:

  • Algoma – Manitoulin – Kapuskasing – PPC Association
  • Association de PPC de Argenteuil – La Petite-Nation
  • Association du PPC de Joliette
  • Association PPC d’Abitibi – Baie-James – Nunavik – Eeyou
  • Association PPC de Beauport – Limoilou
  • Association PPC de Brome-Missisquoi
  • Association PPC de Charlesbourg – Haute-Saint-Charles
  • Association PPC de Chicoutimi – Le Fjord
  • Association PPC de Jonquière
  • Association PPC de LaSalle –Émard – Verdun
  • Association PPC de Laval – Les Îles
  • Association PPC de Longueuil – Charles-LeMoyne
  • Association PPC de Manicouagan
  • Association PPC de Marc-Aurèle-Fortin
  • Association PPC de Montarville
  • Association PPC de Salaberry – Suroît
  • Association PPC de Sherbrooke
  • Battle River – Crowfoot – PPC Association
  • Bay of Quinte-PPC Association
  • Brampton East – PPC Association
  • Brampton South-PPC Association
  • Burlington – PPC Association
  • Calgary Centre – PPC Association
  • Calgary Nose Hill – PPC Association
  • Central Nova – PPC Association
  • Compton – Stanstead Green Party Association
  • Courtenay – Alberni – PPC Association
  • Fredericton – PPC Association
  • Hamilton Centre – PPC Association
  • Hamilton East – Stoney Creek – PPC Association
  • Humber River – Black Creek – PPC Association
  • Kingston and the Islands – PPC Association
  • Kitchener South – Hespeler – PPC Association
  • Malpeque – PPC Association
  • Mississauga East – Cooksville – PPC Association
  • Mississauga – Malton – PPC Association
  • Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe – Peoples Party of Canada
  • New Westminster – Burnaby – PPC Association
  • Northwest Territories – PPC Association
  • Pontiac PPC Association
  • Provencher – PPC Association
  • Scarborough – Guildwood – PPC Association
  • Thunder Bay – Superior North – PPC Association
  • York Centre – PPC Association

March 12, 2021

Anne Lawson
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer
Regulatory Affairs

Deregistration of registered electoral district associations
In accordance with section 465 and subsection 468(4) of the Canada Elections Act, the following associations are deregistered, effective March 31, 2021:

  • Association PPC de Châteauguay – Lacolle
  • Association PPC de Honoré-Mercier
  • Association PPC de La Prairie
  • Association PPC de Montmagny – L’Islet – Kamouraska – Rivière-du-Loup
  • Association PPC de Pierre-Boucher – Les Patriotes – Verchères
  • Egmont – PPC Association
  • Montmagny – L’Islet – Kamouraska – Rivière-du-Loup Electoral District Association for the Green Party
  • Souris – Moose Mountain – PPC Association
  • Steveston – Richmond East – PPC Association
  • Thunder Bay – Rainy River – PPC Association

March 12, 2021

Anne Lawson
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer
Regulatory Affairs

To a casual observer, it looks like these EDAs, (Electoral District Associations), were shut down forcibly. Information is freely available in the Canada Gazette. Now, let’s look at the Canada Elections Act to see what these sections mean.

3. From Canada Elections Act: 465, 466, 468(4)

Deregistration of Registered Associations
Marginal note: Deregistration — failure to provide documents
465 The Chief Electoral Officer may deregister a registered association if the association fails to provide
(a) any of the documents referred to in section 451;
(b) a report under subsection 456(2) concerning the appointment of an electoral district agent;
(c) any of the documents referred to in subsection 463(1) or (2) with respect to a replacement of its financial agent or auditor;
(d) a report under subsection 463(1) concerning a change in any other registered information;
(e) confirmation under section 464 of the validity of the registered information; or
(f) a report that is required to be filed under subsection 476.1(1) by the registered association.

Deregistration — failure to file return
466 The Chief Electoral Officer may deregister a registered association if its financial agent fails to provide him or her with a document for a fiscal period in accordance with subsection 475.4(1).

Procedure for non-voluntary deregistration
468 (1) If the Chief Electoral Officer believes on reasonable grounds that a registered association or its financial agent has omitted to perform any obligation referred to in section 465 or 466, the Chief Electoral Officer shall, in writing, notify the association’s chief executive officer and its financial agent that the association or financial agent must
(a) rectify the omission by the discharge of that obligation within 30 days after receipt of the notice; or
(b) satisfy the Chief Electoral Officer that the omission was not the result of negligence or a lack of good faith.
Marginal note: Extension or exemption
(2) If paragraph (1)(b) applies, the Chief Electoral Officer may amend the notice by
(a) exempting, in whole or in part, the recipients of the notice from complying with the obligations referred to in section 465 or 466; or
(b) specifying a period for compliance with the obligations referred to in paragraph (1)(a).
Marginal note: Copy of notice
(3) A copy of any notice or amendment under subsection (1) or (2) shall be sent to the leader and the chief agent of the registered party with which the registered association is affiliated.
Marginal note: Deregistration
(4) The Chief Electoral Officer may deregister a registered association if the association or its financial agent fails to comply with a notice referred to in subsection (1) or with a notice amended under subsection (2).

Looking at Sections 465, 466, and 468(4) of Canada Elections Act, it would appear that these dozens of EDAs were shut down by Elections Canada for not filing mandatory documents. Specifically, it looks like their financials weren’t filed.

Note: there is a provision for VOLUNTARY deregistration, under Section 467, but nowhere is it mentioned as a reason to close these EDAs.

Also, Section 451 of the Elections Act refers to the requirement that a statement of financial assets and liabilities be submitted within 6 months of the EDA being formed.

3. PPC Spinning These Forced Shutdowns?

The last image was from a Telegram posting from Shane Marshall of Elgin-Middlesex-London Regional PPC Association.

If the words of the party insiders are to be believed, shutting down these EDAs was part of some deliberate cost cutting measure done to save money. While that may sound reasonable on the surface, Elections Canada spells out exactly why they were closed. It was for not filing their mandatory documents. But a nice spin.

Also, the EDAs are run by volunteers, so how much money would be saved by getting rid of them?

Even if firing these volunteers saved money — such as filing fees — isn’t that pretty cold to toss aside people volunteering their labour to get the party going?

While it’s true that the same group of people can run multiple EDAs at one time, they still need to be there. The Canada Elections Act, starting at Section 447, goes into great detail about EDAs, but there is no mention of a regional EDA. Sure, there are regional directors of parties, but that is not the same thing.

A look on the PPC website shows that the EDA listings have been removed entirely, and only Provincial Coordinators are listed.

Furthermore, given that this is a MINORITY Parliament, an election could be called, or a non-confidence vote could happen at any time. This makes no sense. The EDAs would have to be reestablished within days in order to be functional again.

True, members of the public can donate directly to the headquarters in Gatineau, Quebec. However, there is no guarantee whatsoever that money would come back to the local candidate. Last election, it was known the candidates were left to fundraise on their own, with shoestring budgets.

A more plausible explanation is that the high level of turnover has made running many EDAs impossible. Without locals to do these jobs, nothing happens. When a party appoints its leader, doesn’t hold policy votes, and doesn’t have the protection of a constitution, it can be a turnoff. As such, Maxime Bernier would have had advance notice that dozens of EDAs were about to be closed down for not filing their financials. It is then twisted into a deliberate decision to save money.

Canadian Mama, Grizzly and Marshall go into spin mode to defend this as some bizarre economic measure.

Side note: interesting that they take potshots at Maverick (formerly WExit). Both are fake organizations that grift under the cover of being political entities. Neither “party” has a constitution, or other governing documents. Additionally, they act as honeypots to channel legitimate outrage into movements that are designed to go nowhere.

It’s also strange that none of the “conservative” media outlets call this out. True North, Post Millennial, Rebel & Postmedia all play along.

4. What Does Elections Canada Have To Say?

A phone call with Elections Canada revealed 3 pieces of information. First, EDAs that are deregistered CANNOT fundraise for a candidate in the riding. Second, that the employee had never heard of a “regional EDA”. He knew absolutely nothing about the idea. He knew of nowhere in the Elections Canada Act where that existed. Third, money can still be sent to the party headquarters, but cannot be done locally.

Final thought: The PPC is lying about why the EDAs were closed in the first place. As such, they are likely lying about these “regional EDAs” that are taking place. After all, it is a fake party.

CV #62(F): International — Or Global — Treaty For Pandemic Preparedness And Response Proposed

About 2 dozen world leaders have agreed, at least in principle, of setting up an international treaty to “deal with future pandemics”. Presumably, this would ultimately result in a World Government of sorts that could act in sweeping ways. But of course, it would all be done in the name of public health.

1. Important Links—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture

(62.1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(62.2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(62.3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(62.4) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR
(62.5) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II

2. Text Of Letter Agreed By National Leaders

The COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s. At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system. The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation, namely peace, prosperity, health and security.

Today, we hold the same hope that as we fight to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic together, we can build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations. There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone. The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.

We are, therefore, committed to ensuring universal and equitable access to safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for this and future pandemics. Immunization is a global public good and we will need to be able to develop, manufacture and deploy vaccines as quickly as possible.

This is why the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) was set up in order to promote equal access to tests, treatments and vaccines and support health systems across the globe. ACT-A has delivered on many aspects but equitable access is not achieved yet. There is more we can do to promote global access.

To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.

Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level. It would be rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organization, drawing in other relevant organizations key to this endeavour, in support of the principle of health for all. Existing global health instruments, especially the International Health Regulations, would underpin such a treaty, ensuring a firm and tested foundation on which we can build and improve.

The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all-of-government and all-of-society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international cooperation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research, and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter measures, such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.

It would also include recognition of a “One Health” approach that connects the health of humans, animals and our planet. And such a treaty should lead to more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and cooperation within the international system and with its rules and norms.

To achieve this, we will work with Heads of State and governments globally and all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. We are convinced that it is our responsibility, as leaders of nations and international institutions, to ensure that the world learns the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis. Building our capacities and systems to do this will take time and require a sustained political, financial and societal commitment over many years.

Our solidarity in ensuring that the world is better prepared will be our legacy that protects our children and grandchildren and minimizes the impact of future pandemics on our economies and our societies.

Pandemic preparedness needs global leadership for a global health system fit for this millennium. To make this commitment a reality, we must be guided by solidarity, fairness, transparency, inclusiveness and equity.

Still think those “International Health Regulations” aren’t legally binding? Wrong, they will be used as the basis for asserting even more control. And it’s already largely done.

From the way things are going, it seems extremely unlikely that there will be any sort of referendum or democratic mandate to legitimize such a thing nationally.

When they say “coming together globally”, what does that really mean? Will there be a supra-national group to decide what sectors of the economy should be shut down? Will there be misinformation laws to punish or charge people for contradicting the narrative? Will they decide on mandatory vaccinations, or masks? What accountability, if any, will be in place?

3. Who Has Approved, At Least In Principle

  • Edi Rama, Prime Minister of Albania;
  • Sebastián Piñera, President of Chile;
  • Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica;
  • J. V. Bainimarama, Prime Minister of Fiji;
  • Emmanuel Macron, President of France;
  • Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany;
  • Charles Michel, President of the European Council;
  • Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece;
  • Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia;
  • Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya;
  • Moon Jae-in, President of the Republic of Korea;
  • Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands;
  • Erna Solberg, Prime Miniser of Norway;
  • António Luís Santos da Costa, Prime Minister of Portugal;
  • Klaus Iohannis, President of Romania;
  • Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda;
  • Macky Sall, President of Senegal;
  • Aleksandar Vučić, President of Serbia;
  • Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa;
  • Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain;
  • Prayut Chan-o-cha, Prime Minister of Thailand;
  • Keith Rowley, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago;
  • Kais Saied, President of Tunisia;
  • Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine;
  • Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom;
  • Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization.

Sure, Canada isn’t on that list — yet. However, there is certainly nothing to indicate that we won’t be forced to go along at some point. The people running this country aren’t exactly huge supporters of free speech.

TSCE #14(E): Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

59 countries endorses the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This was designed to prevent the rights of foreign nationals from being abused for political reasons. However, there are some issues to address.

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface

The arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law, undermines international relations, and has a negative impact on foreign nationals traveling, working and living abroad. Foreign nationals abroad are susceptible to arbitrary arrest and detention or sentencing by governments seeking to compel action from other States. The purpose of this Declaration is to enhance international cooperation and end the practice of arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments.

Recognising a pressing need for an international response to the prevalence of these practices, and guided by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations:

1. We reaffirm that arbitrary arrests and detentions are contrary to international human rights law and instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments;

2. We express grave concern about the use of arbitrary arrest or detention by States to exercise leverage over foreign governments, contrary to international law;

3. We are deeply concerned that arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments undermines the development of friendly relations and cooperation between States, international travel, trade and commerce, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means;

4. We are alarmed by the abuse of State authority, including judicial authority, to arbitrarily arrest, detain or sentence individuals to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We call on States to respect their obligations related to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;

5. We urge all States to refrain from arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments in the context of State-to-State relations;

6. We reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, respect for human rights, and respect for the obligation to provide consular access in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other applicable international instruments;

7. We call upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to counsel, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We reaffirm the urgent need to provide these individuals with an effective remedy consistent with international human rights law, and call for their immediate release;

8. We stand in solidarity with States whose nationals* have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced by other States seeking to exercise leverage over them and acknowledge the need to work collaboratively to address this issue of mutual concern at the international level.

This Declaration remains open to endorsement.
(*) Including dual nationals in accordance with endorsing countries’ laws on nationality.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with any of this. People’s rights shouldn’t be denied or abused in order to make some geopolitical power play. The text of the treaty sounds fine. However, there are some problems that need to be addressed.

Of course, how would such a treaty be enforced? Who and where would it be enforced? Could a country simply withdraw and go about business as usual? How could anyone scrutinize or investigate possible violations?

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

There seems to be no mention of China, who has been holding 2 Canadians as prisoners for years. This of course, refers to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This happened in retaliation for Canada arresting a Huawei executive. Also, what about the mass arrests and persecutions of religious minorities that China has long been accused of committing?

What is really the purpose of this Declaration? Is it to send a message? Is it to appear virtuous? Of course, appearing virtuous is not the same thing as being virtuous. It can’t be for ideological reasons, given the following issue:

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

For any of these countries to be taken seriously, what about the human rights abuses that are going on domestically against their own citizens? Is it okay, or less wrong, when it’s done locally? Do any of these sound familiar?

  • Forced quarantine detentions
  • Forced curfews
  • Forced stay-at-home orders
  • Forced closures of businesses
  • Forced closures of religious services
  • Forced masks on adults
  • Forced masks on children
  • Forced nasal rape for bogus tests
  • Peaceful assembly banned
  • Banning free speech as “misinformation”
  • Arrests for violating any of the above

While these 59 countries are crowing about how virtuous they are, many have implemented some or all of the above measures. Of course, this is done in the name of “public safety”. Are they not stripping their own people’s rights in order to implement political agendas? Shouldn’t human rights be applied universally, not just when travelling abroad?

Although it’s still just a proposal, public officials in Canada have openly suggested the idea of passing laws to ban what they call “misinformation”. Of course, this refers to people who will research and expose their lies.

Many Other Periodicals Receiving The “Pandemic Bucks” In Order To Push The Narrative

The Voice of Pelham is one of many dozens of media outlets which receives taxpayer subsidies as “Covid relief”. A reasonable person may wonder to what degree that impacts the content they cover.

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. Canadian Media Is Heavily Subsidized

This rabbit hole goes much deeper than Aberdeen Publishing, or Postmedia. Nearly all media in Canada, whether it is mainstream, alternvative, or just an infrequent publisher, is receiving financial support. And this doesn’t even factor into the ad space that is bought up. Can it be any wonder that they aren’t too critical of the official narratives?

3. Records Of More Periodical Subsidies

The 40-Mile County Commentator Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $112,834
The 40-Mile County Commentator Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $28,209
Alaska Highway News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $73,353
Assiniboia Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $21,898
The Battlefords Regional News-Optimist Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $68,449
Bridge River Liollet News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $19,190
Bridge River Liollet News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Burnaby Now Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $196,439
Carlyle Observor Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $16,934
Dawson Creek Mirror Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $58,958
Delta Optimist Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $183,342
East Central Recorder Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,145
Estevan Mercury Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $50,362
Maple Creek & Southwest Advance Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $30,438
Maple Creek & Southwest Advance Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $7,610
Maple Creek News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $29,897
Maple Creek News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $7,474
Midweek Peak Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $41,999
New Westminister Record Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $196,204
North Shore News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $355,882
Orinha Media Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $43,440
Pique Newsmagazine Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $272,821
Post City Magazines Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $504,262
Powell River Peak Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $48,670
Powell River Peak Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $12,168
Prairie Post East Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $63,302
Prairie Post East Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $21,430
Richmond News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $204,988
The Shaunavon Standard Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,625
The Shaunavon Standard Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Squamish Chief Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $89,205
The Sunny South News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $75,565
The Sunny South News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,891
The Taber Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $33,262
The Taber Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $8,316
Thompson Citizen Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $41,167
Tri-City News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $246,952
Unity-Wilkie Press Herald Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $30,048
Unity-Wilkie Press Herald Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $7,512
Vancouver Courier Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $317,825
The Vauxhall Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $8,261
The Vauxhall Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Virden Empire-Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $36,821
Virden Empire-Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $9,205
The Voice Of Pelham Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,962
Western Investor Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $31,001
Westlock News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $56,174
Westlock News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $14,044
Westwind Weekly News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $4,532
Westwind Weekly News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Weyburn Review Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $36,741
Weyburn Review Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $9,185
Weyburn This Week Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $28,686
Yorkton This Week Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $56,174
Yorkton This Week Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $14,044

Note: There are organizations that received funding during this time that WEREN’T specifically labelled as Covid funding. That said, if they had any “understanding” when receiving any grants, it would apply to all of them.

This isn’t all of the organizations getting money. However, search HERE to see if your local paper is getting money as well.

There are also relatively few owners controlling most of the above outlets, such as:

  • Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership
  • LMP Publication Limited Partnership
  • Prairie Newspaper Group Limited
  • Whistler Publishing Limited Partnership

4. Local Journalism Initiative

Association De La Press Francophone Jun. 10, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $600,000
Canadian Association Of Community TV Users And Stations May 7, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $1,200,000
Canadian News Media Association May 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $14,400,000
Community Radio Fund Of Canada Inc. Apr. 29, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $2,000,000
National Ethnic Press And Media Council Of Canada Jun. 4, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $1,200,000
Quebec Community Newspapers Association Jun. 28, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $600,000

Even before this “pandemic” hit, Ottawa was handing out subsidies. These grants are for the Local Journalism Initiative. Not sure why we need to fund the National Ethnic Press and Media Council. Isn’t that the opposite of local?

5. Canadians Get Raw Deal Here

What does all this mean? It means that the vast majority of media in Canada, even so-called “independents” are being financially propped up by Ottawa. Or rather, it means that they are supported by taxes and debt that the public is incurring.

It must be noted, that in addition to direct grants, Governments further use public money to purchase ads, to reinforce these claims. The result is a near monopoly in the media. Considering the many unanswered questions, this seems particularly dangerous.

Does any of this help Canadians? Does having a press unable or unwilling to address difficult questions benefit society in any way? Certainly not. For real journalism, check out this page.

CV #62(D): Provincial Health Acts Are Really Just WHO-IHR Domestically Implemented

Bill C-12 is the 2005 Quarantine Act, passed by Canada’s Parliament. It was heavily based on presumed changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization imposed. However, the problem has filtered down to the Provinces as well.

Strangely, it was only the Bloc Quebecois who voted against this. All other parties supported this Bill.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links


3. Canada’s Quarantine Act Written By WHO

As mentioned earlier, the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO issues are legally binding on all Member States. Countries are expected to follow the directives that are sent, even if they are very much against national self interest.

In declaring this “pandemic”, Trudeau activated the 2005 Quarantine Act, a piece of legislation that violates many basic rights in the name of “public health”. However, Bill C-12 was actually written by the World Health Organization. What this means is that the Bill was drafted in anticipation of changes to the 3rd Edition of the IHR, which remain legally binding today.

But what about the Provinces? What is the situation with their Public Health Acts? Turns out that many of the clauses from the Quarantine Act are included, almost word for word?

4. British Columbia Public Health Act

Preventive measure
16 (1) Preventive measures include the following:
(a) being treated or vaccinated;
(b) taking preventive medication;
(c) washing with, applying or ingesting a substance, or having a substance injected or inserted;
(d) undergoing disinfection and decontamination measures;
(e) wearing a type of clothing or other personal protective equipment, or changing, removing or altering clothing or personal protective equipment;
(f) using a type of equipment or implementing a process, or removing or altering equipment or processes.
(2) A person subject to a regulation requiring preventive measures must not be in a place or do a thing that is prohibited by the regulation until the person has
(a)taken preventive measures as set out in the regulation, or
(b)if permitted by the regulation, made an objection under subsection (4).

General emergency powers
Division 2 — Order of the Minister
Minister may order temporary quarantine facility
26 (1)The minister may by order designate a place as a quarantine facility if the minister reasonably believes that the temporary use of the place for the purposes of isolating or detaining infected persons is necessary to protect public health.
(2) A person who has control of a place designated as a quarantine facility must provide the place to the minister or a medical health officer.

Division 3 — Orders Respecting Infectious Agents and Hazardous Agents
When orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made
27 (1) A medical health officer may issue an order under this Division only if the medical health officer reasonably believes that
(a) a person
(i) is an infected person, or
(ii) has custody or control of an infected person or an infected thing, and
(b) the order is necessary to protect public health.
(2) An order may be issued based on clinical findings or a person’s or thing’s circumstances or medical history, even if the person or thing has been examined and the examination did not reveal the presence of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

General powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
28 (1) If the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, a medical health officer may order a person to do anything that the medical health officer reasonably believes is necessary for either or both of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether an infectious agent or a hazardous agent exists, or likely exists;
(b) to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

(2 ) A medical health officer may, in respect of an infected thing,
(a) make any order, with any necessary modifications, that can be made under this Division as if the infected thing were an infected person, and
(b) direct the order to any person having custody or control of the infected thing.

Specific powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
29 (1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 28 (1) [general powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents].
(2) Without limiting section 28, a medical health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
(a) remain in a specified place, or not enter a place;
(b) avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person or thing;
(c) be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(d) provide to the medical health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to the person’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or a hazardous agent by the person;
(e) be examined by a specified person, including
(i) going to a specified facility for examination, and
(ii) being examined before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(f) submit to diagnostic examination, including going to a specified facility or providing the results to a specified person;
(g) take preventive measures, including
(i) going to a specified facility for preventive measures,
(ii) complying with preventive measures set out in the order, specified by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, or both, and
(iii) beginning preventive measures before a particular date, and continuing until a particular date or event;
(h) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a medical health officer any relevant record;

(I ) take a prescribed action.
(3) For greater certainty, this section applies even if the person subject to the order is complying with all terms and conditions of a licence, a permit, an approval or another authorization issued under this or any other enactment.

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the following:
(a) act in a shorter or longer time period than is otherwise required;
(b) not provide a notice that is otherwise required;
(c) do orally what must otherwise be done in writing;
(d) in respect of a licence or permit over which the health officer has authority under section 55 [acting outside designated terms during emergencies] or the regulations, suspend or vary the licence or permit without providing an opportunity to dispute the action;
(e) specify in an order a facility, place, person or procedure other than as required under section 63 [power to establish directives and standards], unless an order under that section specifies that the order applies in an emergency;
(f) omit from an order things that are otherwise required;
(g) serve an order in any manner;
(h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of orders];
(i) exempt an examiner from providing examination results to an examined person;
(j) conduct an inspection at any time, with or without a warrant, including of a private dwelling;
(k) collect, use or disclose information, including personal information,
(i) that could not otherwise be collected, used or disclosed, or
(ii) in a form or manner other than the form or manner required.

Under Section 54 the B.C. Public Health Act, during emergencies (or self-identified emergencies), Health Officers can have any place inspected at any time. A person can be examined, and the results of that exam withheld from him/her. Business can be shut down, without any recourse to challenge it. Health Officers can do things with oral only notice, or with no notice at all, and these privileges can be extended longer than need be.

Under Section 16 of the Act, a person can be ordered to be: vaccinated; medicated; ingest or insert something, and other invasive procedures. Section 26 of the Act allows the Health Minister to take any property and convert it into a quarantine facility. Sections 27 through 29 allows a Medical Health Officer – in this case, Bonnie Henry – virtual dictatorial powers over other people’s lives and livelihoods.

Worth clarifying, these “Health Officers” or “Medical Officers” are not elected by the public in any capacity. They cannot be voted out of their positions, regardless of the sentiments of the general population.
The Act of course is much, much longer than this. However, it is truly stunning just how much power unelected Health Officers are given over other people’s lives. And in B.C., all parties are apparently okay with handing over their duties.

Sure, the B.C. Public Health Act gives bureaucrats that power, but who wrote the Act in the first place? Who was responsible for handing over that power to begin with? This Act was written and voted on by MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), who are, in theory, accountable to voters.

A cynic might wonder if MLAs made this law in order to avoid making themselves accountable for decisions they make. Here at least, they can claim it’s not them, and that they are simply following the advice of health professionals.

It’s interesting that the B.C Health Act was assented to (made law) in 2008. The 3rd Edition of WHO’s International Health Regulations came into effect in 2005, and Canada’s 2005 Quarantine Act was heavily based on those IHR. The B.C. Act contains much of the same information and powers as the WHO/Federal documents, and it’s fair to assume that the content was derived from them.

Of course, this is hardly limited to B.C. Other Provinces have their own version of a Provincial Health Act, and they carry many of the same powers. This includes: Alberta , Saskatchewan , Manitoba , among others. What these Acts all have in common is they give broad, sweeping powers to bureaucrats who are not elected by the public, and who cannot be voted out. Looking at Alberta:

5. Alberta Public Health Act

Powers of Chief Medical Officer
14(1) The Chief Medical Officer
(a) shall, on behalf of the Minister, monitor the health of Albertans and make recommendations to the Minister and regional health authorities on measures to protect and promote the health of the public and to prevent disease and injury,
(b) shall act as a liaison between the Government and regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act,
(c) shall monitor activities of regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act, and
(d) may give directions to regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the exercise of their powers and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act.

(2) Where the Chief Medical Officer is of the opinion that a medical officer of health or executive officer is not properly exercising powers or carrying out duties under this Act in respect of a matter, the Chief Medical Officer may assume the powers and duties of the medical officer of health or executive officer in respect of the matter and act in that person’s place.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
Isolation and quarantine
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

Sections 13 to 15 of Alberta’s Public Health Act outline how a Medical Health Officer is appointed, and the vast powers available to that person. In Alberta, that is currently Deena Hinshaw. Like Bonnie Henry, she is not elected, and cannot be held directly liable to the public for anything that she does.

Pages 25 through 31 of the most recent version of that Act relate to quarantine measures, epidemics, and how the average person’s rights can be suspended almost indefinitely under the pretense of “public safety”. It reads like the Provincial counterpart to the Quarantine Act, which of course, was dictated by the WHO.

Pages 39 through 51 cover Section 52 of the Alberta Public Health Act. It gives sweeping powers to unelected bureaucrats in the name of safety. The content of that Section reads almost beat for beat identical to that of the Quarantine Act. Moving on to Saskatchewan, we get this piece of legislation:

6. Saskatchewan Public Health Act

45(1) The minister may make an order described in subsection (2) if the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that:
(a) a serious public health threat exists in Saskatchewan; and (b) the requirements set out in the order are necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat. (2) An order pursuant to this section may: (a) direct the closing of a public place;
(b) restrict travel to or from a specified area of Saskatchewan;
(c) prohibit public gatherings in a specified area of Saskatchewan;
(d) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person who is not known to be protected against the communicable disease:
(i) to be immunized or given prophylaxis where the disease is one for which immunization or prophylaxis is available; or
(ii) to be excluded from school until the danger of infection is past where the person is a pupil;
(e) establish temporary hospitals;
(f) require a local authority, a medical health officer or a public health officer to investigate matters relating to the serious public health threat and report to the minister the results of the investigation;
(g) require any person who, in the opinion of the minister or medical health officer, is likely to have information that is necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat to disclose that information to the minister or a medical health officer;
(h) authorize public health officers, peace officers or prescribed persons to confiscate substances or other materials found in any place, premises or vehicle, if those substances or materials are suspected by the public health officer, peace officer or prescribed person of causing or contributing to a serious public health threat or packages, containers or devices containing or suspected of containing any of those substances or materials;
(i) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person to be isolated from other persons until a medical health officer is satisfied that isolation is no longer necessary to decrease or eliminate the transmission of a communicable disease.

Preventive detention order
45.1(1) If a person fails to comply with an order pursuant to clause 45(2)(i) and a medical health officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is endangering the lives, safety or health of the public because the person is or probably is infected with, or has been or might have been exposed to, a communicable disease, the medical health officer may detain the person for a period not exceeding the prescribed period of transmissibility of the disease.

(2) A person detained by a medical health officer pursuant to subsection (1) may request a review of his or her detention by application to the Court of Queen’s Bench served on the minister, and the court may make any order with respect to the detention or the release of the person that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the danger to the lives, safety or health of the public.

In similar fashion, Saskatchewan has their own Public Health Act, which has undergone several revisions since the 1990s. It allows for freedoms and liberties to be suspended on even the vaguest suspicion that a person may have an infectious disease. It also allows for property to be seized, and people to be detained.

Things like public gatherings, and freedom of citizens to travel can also be suspended indefinitely under the guise of safety.

Note: as with all of these cases, it’s not the politicians doing the dirty work. It’s the various “experts” who call themselves Chief Medical Officers (or similar titles). This provides cover to elected officials, who want to stamp out civil rights, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty in the process. Now, about Manitoba:

7. Manitoba Public Health Act

Public health emergency
67(1) The chief public health officer may take one or more of the special measures described in subsection (2) if he or she reasonably believes that
(a) a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease; and
(b) the threat to public health cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated without taking special measures.

Special measures
67(2) The chief public health officer may take the following special measures in the circumstances set out in subsection (1):
(a) issue directions, for the purpose of managing the threat, to a regional health authority, health corporation, health care organization, operator of a laboratory, operator of a licensed emergency medical response system, health professional or health care provider, including directions about
(i) identifying and managing cases,
(ii) controlling infection,
(iii) managing hospitals and other health care facilities and emergency medical response services, and
(iv) managing and distributing equipment and supplies;
(a.1) issue an order prohibiting or restricting persons from travelling to, from or within a specified area, or requiring persons who are doing so to take specified actions;
(b) order the owner, occupant or person who appears to be in charge of any place or premises to deliver up possession of it to the minister for use as a temporary isolation or quarantine facility;
(c) order a public place or premises to be closed;
(d) order persons not to assemble in a public gathering in a specified area;
(d.1) order persons to take specified measures to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, including persons who arrive in Manitoba from another province, territory or country;
(e) order a person who the chief public health officer reasonably believes is not protected against a communicable disease to do one or both of the following:
(i) be immunized, or take any other preventive measures,
(ii) refrain from any activity or employment that poses a significant risk of infection, until the chief public health officer considers the risk of infection no longer exists;
(f) order an employer to exclude from a place of employment any person subject to an order under subclause (e)(ii).

Manitoba’s Public Health Act allows the Chief Medical Officer, and the operatives, to effectively suspend basic civil rights indefinitely. Of course this is “for your safety”, the ever present excuse. Basic liberties such as free association, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to earn a livelihood can be stopped.

Note: the Act was assented to on June 13, 2006, a year after the Federal Quarantine Act, and the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations were implemented. The obvious implication is that this Act is just Manitoba enacting its own version.

Section 10 of the Act mandates that a Chief Medical Officer be named. Currently, that is Brent Roussin. In November, he caused a scandal when he openly admitted that public health orders don’t apply to public officials. Not leading by example.

8. Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act

Chief Medical Officer of Health may act where risk to health
77.1 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may investigate the situation and take such action as he or she considers appropriate to prevent, eliminate or decrease the risk. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
Same (2) For the purpose of subsection
(1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
(a) may exercise anywhere in Ontario,
(i) any of the powers of a board of health, including the power to appoint a medical officer of health or an associate medical officer of health, and (ii) any of the powers of a medical officer of health; and
(b) may direct a person whose services are engaged by a board of health to do, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, any act,
(i) that the person has power to do under this Act, or
(ii) that the medical officer of health for the health unit served by the board of health has authority to direct the person to do within the health unit. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
Authority and duty of person directed to act
(3) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health gives a direction under clause (2) (b) to a person whose services are engaged by a board of health, (a) the person has authority to act, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, to the same extent as if the direction had been given by the medical officer of health of the board of health and the act had been done in the health unit; and (b) the person shall carry out the direction as soon as practicable. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Section 22 powers
(4) For the purpose of the exercise by the Chief Medical Officer of Health under subsection (2) of the powers of a medical officer of health, a reference in section 22 to a communicable disease shall be deemed to be a reference to an infectious disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Application to judge where risk to health 77.2 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (2). 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Possession of premises for temporary isolation facility
77.4 (1) The Minister, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), by order may require the occupier of any premises to deliver possession of all or any specified part of the premises to the Minister to be used as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out an expiry date for the order that is not more than 12 months after the day of its making and the Minister may extend the order for a further period of not more than 12 months. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
Grounds for order
(3) The Minister may make an order under subsection (1) where the Chief Medical Officer of Health certifies in writing to the Minister that, (a) there exists or there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease anywhere in Ontario; and (b) the premises are needed for use as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility in respect of the communicable disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Ontario has the 2007 Health Protection and Promotion Act. The wording and powers are very similar to other Provinces, and to the Federal Quarantine Act. The timing is also suspicious, given that this was implemented soon after the 2005 International Health Regulations and the Federal legislation.

In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer is David Williams, and the Deputy Medical Officer is Barbara Yaffe. As with the other so-called experts, these people are not elected, and have no real accountability to the public. Both have made very interesting statements about how dangerous this “pandemic” really is. More on them later.

9. These Acts Strip Away Basic Rights

At no time is there a requirement for there to be PROOF of a public health emergency to act on these powers. These Chief Medical Officers can simply claim that they “reasonably believe”, and that is sufficient.

Provincially and Federally, politicians write laws that allow unelected bureaucrats almost free reign to impose whatever measures they want. Of course, they don’t write content of the laws, but follow the instructions of a supra-national body that is accountable to no one.

This only covers 5 Provinces, however, they all have similar laws. If there is time, a Part II will be published to cover the others.