Category: Vaccines

Posted on

CV #10(B): Quebec Pharma Lobbying, Bipartisan Support For Lockdowns

Quebec Premier Francois Legault announces that more freedoms will be stripped away under the pretense of public safety. This will involve a forced curfew on Quebecers. But who’s really running the show in Quebec?

Link To Quebec Lobbying Registry

1. All Quebec Parties Support Lockdowns

To be fair, this not just Legault who is pushing this effort to impose a curfew. All parties in Quebec support it. Although they moan about the details of implementation, they are ideologically on the same page. Despite there being no evidence, none are willing to publicly reject it. This is only the appearance of opposition.

2. Gates Foundation Behind Quebec Lockdown

Date: October 2020
Purpose: to increase Canada’s global leadership through investments in international development
Amount: $541,566
Term: 24
Topic: Family Planning, Public Awareness and Analysis
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: Advocacy|Global Development
Grantee Location: Westmount, Quebec
Grantee Website: http://www.global-canada.org

In October 2020, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $541,566 to Global Canada, a “think tank” proposing martial law (a.k.a. lockdowns) throughout Canada. See the paper that is now publicly available. Keep in mind, that shills like Brian Lilley refused to properly cover that.

3. Gates Foundation Major McGill Donor

In October 2018, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $7.3 million to UNESCO in Montreal. There was also $195,000 handed out in November 2017. Those are far from the only grants in Quebec.

Date Of Grant Amount Given
November 2012 $1,488,773
November 2013 $2,351,021
October 2014 $196,305
October 2015 $100,000
August 2017 $652,488
September 2017 $50,000
July 2019 $629,970
April 2019 $524,285
April 2020 $839,644
September 2020 $1,227,508

Too lengthy to go into here, but it seems that an awful lot of powerful politicians have gone either to McGill, or University of British Columbia. Must be quite the networking opportunities.

4. Quebec Lobbying Registry Records

  • Aspen Pharmacare
  • Astellas Pharma Canada Inc
  • Canadian Biosimilars Forum
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Laurent Pharmaceuticals
  • Merck
  • Novartis
  • Pfizer
  • Purdue Pharma
  • Sanofi
  • Teva
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Canada) Inc.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but some of the companies that are lobbying in Quebec.

5. Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association

On behalf of CGPA and its member companies, congratulations to François Legault and his team for their historic victory in Monday’s Quebec elections. The CGPA wishes them every success in their majority mandate for the next four years. I also congratulate the elected representatives of all political parties, as well as the defeated candidates who participated in the important democratic process that has taken place over the last 40 days.

Our association looks forward to working with the new government on issues of importance to our members as well as Quebec’s health-care system and its economy. The CGPA and the Government of Quebec signed an agreement in July 2017 that achieves substantial savings for the health care system while helping to provide a more sustainable environment for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. We remain committed to our ongoing partnership with the Government of Quebec.

Our association also reiterates its disappointment with the provisions of the US – Mexico – Canada Agreement (USMCA) that will delay Quebecers’ access to competitively priced biosimilar drugs. Biologic medicines are the fastest growing segment in the health sector. These delays will be costly to patients, the Government of Quebec and Quebec employers that sponsor drug plans for their employees.

Interesting. Is this normal to congratulate every politician who ever runs in any race? Or is in order to remain friendly with everyone, should the balance of power shift?

It seems that all major political parties are on board with the same vaccination and martial law initiatives. And it’s the citizens who suffer.

(1) Link To Quebec Lobbying Registry
(2) CTV: All QC Parties Support Lockdown Measures
(3) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Main Page
(4) Global Canada’s Paper On Proposed Lockdowns
(5) Gates Donated $541,000 To Global Canada Group, 2020
(6) Gates Donated $103,000 To Global Canada Group, 2015
(7) Global Canada’s Financial Supporters
(8) Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association

Posted on

CV #4(C): Crestview Strategy’s Ashton Arsenault Takes Over Lobbying For GAVI

The Gates Foundation lobbies the Canadian Government, but not directly. It uses proxies. GAVI (the Global Vaccine Alliance), is heavily funded by Gates, and it employs a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy. Crestview was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, and is well connected. Lobbyists are dispatched to Ottawa to try to get more taxpayer money.

The most recent to sign up is Ashton Arsenault.

Keep in mind, lobbying is legal (for the most part), as long as all meetings are documented, and available to the public. Doesn’t make it any less underhanded though.

1. Ashton Arsenault Latest Shill For GAVI

Ashton Arsenault is a senior consultant with Crestview Strategy based out of the Ottawa office.

Prior to joining Crestview, Ashton worked as a political aid on Parliament Hill where he was responsible for parliamentary affairs and issues management for the Minister of National Revenue. Prior to that, he worked as a legislative researcher in the Official Opposition Office in Prince Edward Island. He continues to volunteer in electoral politics at the federal level.

Ashton has been involved in politics for several years, serving as a campaign manager for a Conservative candidate in the 2015 General Election. As well, he served as the University of Prince Edward Island’s Chair of Council from 2011-2012.

Ashton holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Prince Edward Island and a Master of Political Management from Carleton University in Ottawa.

Zakery Blais worked for (Liberal) MP David Lametti, and Jason Clarke volunteered for (Liberal) candidates in Ottawa for the 2015 election. Arsenault has ties to the Conservative Party of Canada, showing that this is not simply a partisan issue.

Make no mistake, lobbying is a very effective way for corporations to get what they want. In total, GAVI has secured over $1 billion in funding, from different administrations.

2. Arsenault Also Represents Medicago

Arsenault is also lobbying on behalf of Medicago, which is working with GlaxoSmithKline to develop a plant-based vaccine for the coronavirus.

3. Arsenault Frequently A CPC Talking Head

Ashton Arsenault regularly appears on television in order to sell CPC talking points to a gullible crowd. This is, of course, not unique to Conservatives. All of these “debates” on screen are arranged to address pre-planned scripts for the public.

Arsenault has donated several times to the Conservative Party of Canada, but the amounts aren’t enough to draw much attention.

4. Arsenault Replaces Zakery Blais

Zakery Blais was previously a lobbyist for Crestview Strategy, on behalf of GAVI. He appears to have since left the firm. Blais also worked for David Lametti (yes, the sitting Attorney General), back when he was a Parliamentary Secretary.

5. What Else Crestview Strategy Does

Drive winning arguments.
.
Crestview Strategy effectively represents the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations to achieve results with governments around the world.
.
No longer is a winning outcome based on ‘who you know’ or the ‘magic meeting’. It is about contributing to the policy process, presenting a case that is supported by authentic community voices, verified impact and compelling insight. And getting in front of the right decision makers and opinion leaders to make that case.

Drive winning engagement.
.
We build and run campaigns that mobilize support and impact change for both political and corporate clients.
.
Mobilization campaigns are premised on the simple fact that for elected officials, the single most influential voice in shaping their decision is that of their local voters, influencers, and community leaders.
.
The benefits of mobilization go beyond just a one-off campaign. The long-term goal of mobilization is to increase engagement potential, provide greater value for members, and to increase the share of voice and influence outcomes.

Keep in mind that firms like Crestview Strategy employ operatives who cover multiple parties. By doing this, it ensures that influence peddling will be effective, regardless of who officially sits in power. It’s important to note that few politicians actually make their own decisions.

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368098&regId=906375
(2) https://www.crestviewstrategy.ca/ashton-arsenault
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashton-arsenault-3a241056/
(4) https://archive.is/dQIoW
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/zakery-blais-13a76b118/
(6) https://archive.is/tybUn

Posted on

CV #30(C): AstraZeneca, Another Candidate To Vaccinate Canadians, And The World

AstraZeneca is one of the pharmaceutical companies looking to sell large quantities of vaccines to Canada, for a virus that has a 99% survival rate. One has to wonder what the public isn’t being told.

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. AstraZeneca Lobbied M-132 Cmte Vice-Chair

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

Remember Motion M-132? It was the Motion introduced in 2017 to finance drugs and drug research both for Canada and the world. See here and here. Marilyn Gladu was the Vice-Chair on that Committee, and hence, lobbying her would carry significant weight.

3. David Lametti Lobbied By AstraZeneca

During the years of 2016 to 2018, David Lametti was a Parliamentary Secretary the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development. Since early 2019, however, he has been the Attorney General of Canada.

As addressed here, Zakery Blais was an Assistant to Lametti when he was a Parliamentary Secretary. Now, he works for the lobbying firm, Crestview Strategy, which was co-Founded by Rob Silver, Katie Telford’s husband. Blais has been a lobbyist pushing for public money for his then client, GAVI

4. “Global Leader”, Michelle Rempel-Garner

Michelle holds a degree in economics. Highlights of her many honours include being named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women by the Women’s Executive Network, Calgary’s “Top 40 under 40”, and being named twice by Maclean’s Magazine as their Parliamentarian of the Year – Rising Star calling her “one of the government’s most impressive performers.” Michelle is also a Young Global Leader, invited to be so by the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum calls the Forum of Young Global Leaders a “unique and diverse community of the world’s most outstanding, next generation leaders.” Rempel was also recently named one of “Alberta’s 50 Most Influential People”.

Although the link seems disabled, Rempel is held in high regards by the World Economic Forum. She is part of the Young Global leaders. This raises the legitimate question of who she really serves. Information is also available on her website.

When Rempel-Garner openly and publicly calls for the entire Canadian population to be vaccinated, who’s really speaking? Is it her, or the drug companies who lobby her?

5. AZ Pushing Canada For GLOBAL Pharma

Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime provides a way for the world’s developing and least-developed countries to import high-quality drugs and medical devices at a lower cost to treat the diseases that bring suffering to their citizens. It is one part of the Government of Canada’s broader strategy to assist countries in their struggle against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases.

Just so we’re clear on what’s going on, AstraZeneca is pushing for Canada to buy vaccines so that they can be provided at little or no cost to the 3rd World. In short, Canadian taxpayers would be on the hook for vaccinating other countries. Of course, this is in addition to getting a domestic supply.

And what about their lobbyists over the years?

Public offices held: Tara Bingham
Executive Assistant and Special Assistant for Parliamentary Affairs & Communications, Hon. Belinda Stronach, M.P., 2004-2005
Parliamentary Assistant, Grant McNally, M.P., 1999-2004
Researcher, Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Preston Manning, M.P., 1997-1999

Public offices held: William Charnetski
Special Advisor, The Honourable Allan Rock, Q.C., P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 1995-1996
Executive Assistant, William C. Graham, Q.C., Member of Parliament (Rosedale), 1993-1995

Public offices held: Marie-Chantale Lepine
Director of Communications, Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, M.P., 2001-2002

Ties to both the Liberal Party of Canada, and the Conservatives. In this case, it doesn’t seem to matter who is in power.

6. Who Are AstraZeneca’s Lobbyists?

https://archive.is/ypVdu

7. More Lobbying By AstraZeneca

From the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario Registries.

8. Who Runs AstraZeneca?

  • Pascal Soriot, Executive Director and CEO
  • Marc Dunoyer, Executive Director and CFO
  • Katarina Ageborg, Executive Vice-President, Sustainability and Chief Compliance Officer; President AstraZeneca AB, Sweden
  • José Baselga, Executive Vice-President, Oncology R&D
  • Pam Cheng, Executive Vice-President, Operations and Information Technology
  • Ruud Dobber, Executive Vice-President, BioPharmaceuticals Business Unit
  • David Fredrickson, Executive Vice-President, Oncology Business Unit
  • Menelas (Mene) Pangalos, Executive Vice-President, BioPharmaceuticals R&D
  • Jeff Pott, Executive Vice-President, Human Resources and General Counsel
  • Iskra Reic, Executive Vice-President, Europe and Canada
  • Leon Wang, Executive Vice-President, International

https://www.astrazeneca.com/our-company/leadership.html

9. AstraZeneca Ordered To Pay Money

AstraZeneca LP, a pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Delaware, has agreed to pay the government $7.9 million to settle allegations that it engaged in a kickback scheme in violation of the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today. AstraZeneca markets and sells pharmaceutical products in the United States, including a drug sold under the trade name Nexium.

“We will continue to pursue pharmaceutical companies that pay kickbacks to pharmacy benefit managers,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Hidden financial agreements between drug manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers can improperly influence which drugs are available to patients and the price paid for drugs.”

The settlement resolves allegations that AstraZeneca agreed to provide remuneration to Medco Health Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager, in exchange for Medco maintaining Nexium’s “sole and exclusive” status on certain Medco formularies and through other marketing activities related to those Medco formularies. The United States alleged that AstraZeneca provided some or all of the remuneration to Medco through price concessions on drugs other than Nexium, namely on Prilosec, Toprol XL and Plendil. The United States contended that this kickback arrangement between AstraZeneca and Medco violated the Federal Anti-Kickback statute, and thereby caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims for Nexium to the Retiree Drug Subsidy Program.

In 2003, AstraZeneca had to pay $355 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities related to marketing practices and drug pricing.

In 2010, AstraZeneca was forced to pay $520 million to for a fraud case that involved allegations of bribery and kickbacks in order to push schizophrenic medications.

In 2015, AstraZeneca was ordered to pay $7.9 million in a kickback scheme. Seems that the finances weren’t exactly on the level.

AstraZeneca has also been in Canadian courts many times, often involving patents and intellectual property disputes.

Posted on

Brian Lilley Mentions Global Canada Piece On Lockdowns, Omits Group Is Gates Funded

A group called Global Canada is proposing extremely strict lockdowns (a.k.a. martial law), in Canada, for a limited time. At least they claim it will be a limited time. Of course, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we will get to their paper soon enough.

And Brian Lilley, a so-called “journalist” with the Toronto Sun, can’t be bothered to do even a small amount of research on this group.

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Brian Lilley’s Toronto Star Article On Proposed Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Complete Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Total Lockdown
https://twitter.com/brianlilley/status/1346454136640974850
https://global-canada.org/
https://global-canada.org/supporters/
https://global-canada.org/team/
https://archive.is/JzFdL
https://archive.is/SETfE
https://archive.is/hGLwi
http://www.18millionwomen.ca/
Family Planning Initiative Calls For Money

3. Conservative Inc.’s Brian Lilley Reports

While I agree that they have diagnosed several problems with our current system correctly, the prescription isn’t one I can get wholly behind.

The group smartly says we do need effective border controls, including testing of air travelers and proper quarantine methods.

The group even suggests making truckers and other essential workers who cross the Canada-US land border a priority group for vaccinations to prevent them from becoming new infection vectors.

What I have trouble with is the idea of another four-to-six week lockdown.

The plan is to invoke a harsh lockdown for four to six weeks, then gradually relax restrictions as cases fall by 17-25% per week until we reach a benchmark of one new case per day per one million of population.

How long that would take would vary greatly by province.

For Ontario and Alberta, that’s at least four to six months, while in Manitoba the effort would take two months, possibly more.

I don’t expect everything to open back up tomorrow, or for life to get back to normal anytime soon.

Yet I doubt many politicians have the desire to sell the public on this plan, of “just one more short lockdown” — and given the past week and how the political class have acted, I doubt very much the public wants to hear it.

From the looks of the article, Lilley doesn’t seem to take any issue (on principle), of forcibly locking down Canada for months. He just seems mildly skeptical that it would be as effective as needed.

Keep in mind, Lilley takes the perspective that we should be grateful it’s Doug Ford imposing lockdowns in Ontario, as others would surely be worse. Whether by accident or by design, Lilley only provides the most tame and meek efforts at holding the Government accountable. What else is he not reporting about this group that calls for more lockdowns?

4. Who Supports This NGO: Global Canada?

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec
  • AIMIA
  • CIGI
  • Competia
  • ZED

Yes, the supporters of Global Canada include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who is heavily involved in the pharmaceutical push. Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec is a large investment firm. So is AIMIA.

It would have been nice if Brian Lilley included this is his article. He linked the original paper.

5. Robert Greenhill Chairs Global Canada

Robert Greenhill
Executive Chairman, Global Canada
.
With a strong interest in global issues, Robert Greenhill has combined a career in international business with a commitment to public policy.
.
Robert Greenhill is Executive Chairman of the Global Canada Initiative. Previous roles include Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, Deputy Minister and President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and President and Chief Operating Officer of the International Group of Bombardier Inc. Robert started his career with McKinsey & Company.
.
Robert has a BA from the University of Alberta, MA from the London School of Economics, and MBA from INSEAD

Global Canada is chaired by a former Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, an organization pushing lockdowns, and which our politicians have ties to. Greenhill also has ties to Bombardier and McKinsey & Company.

Surely this is worth mentioning by the Toronto Sun. One of their roles is holding Government accountable for the things that they do, right?

Michael McAdoo Bio
Senior Consultant, The Boston Consulting Group
.
Michael is a Senior Advisor with the Global Advantage practice area of The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), where he specializes in international trade issues and manufacturing. He brings over twenty-five years of experience at the intersection of business strategy, international geopolitics, public policy, and deep expertise in international trade issues and in cross-cultural operations management.
.
Prior to his current role, Michael was an Executive Vice president with the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC). From 2001-2014 he held a series of senior executive positons with Bombardier. Prior to Bombardier, he was a Principal with BCG (Toronto/Monterrey).
.
Michael holds Masters degrees in International Relations and Journalism from Columbia University, and received his undergraduate education at Queen’s University and Harvard. He has lived and worked in all three NAFTA countries, and is fluent in French and Spanish.

Quite the list of connections here:

  • Bain & Company
  • Bell Canada
  • Bombardier
  • Canadian International Development Agency
  • Boston Consulting Group
  • Business Development Bank of Canada
  • McKinsey & Company
  • Pfizer
  • Privy Council of Canada
  • UN Global Compact
  • World Economic Forum

6. Quotes From The Global Canada Proposal

Canada is relatively well positioned to achieve zero COVID transmission. We are surrounded by ocean on 3 sides with a comparatively small population, engaged citizenry, strong institutions, a federal system of government, mid-sized cities similar to Sydney or Melbourne, and several domestic examples of zero COVID success.

Canada’s situation is essentially the same as Australia’s—with the addition of one major land border. By vaccinating the 200 thousand truckers that regularly cross the border and fully implementing other proven measures, Canada can seal off the U.S.-Canada border to the COVID virus while allowing essential trade to continue unimpeded.

Achieving zero transmission is feasible in Canada. Indeed, Canada may have inadvertently thrown away its shot to get to zero once already this summer.

With rising COVID cases and hospitalizations, difficult decisions have to be made. If the wrong decisions are made, we will face potential shutdowns again in 3 months. The time is right to determine whether going for zero is a superior strategy for Canada. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

Conclusion: We Have a Choice
Tough decisions will be necessary across Canada over the next few weeks. Canadians will doubtless be asked to make significant additional sacrifices. It is critical that these decisions and sacrifices are made with the right strategy in mind.

The TANZANC strategy of aggressive suppression is a viable option for Canada. Given the critical challenges to our present approach, the TANZANC model should be assessed and debated.

It may be that a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the TANZANC model is not a better strategy. If, however, the TANZANC model is right for Canada, or for certain provinces, we should act on it now. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

The conclusion from this report is that Canada has a choice. Living with COVID in the world is reality. Living with COVID in our communities is a choice.
Is it the right choice?

This paper brings up the same old talking points about lockdowns (martial law) being necessary in order to stop people from getting infected. In short, we still have problems because restrictions haven’t been harsh enough.

No mention of the bogus science behind this, such as the virus not isolated, or PCR tests not designed for this. No mention that people overwhelmingly recover, or that restrictions have been applied in an arbitrary and inconsistent matter.

The group regularly talks about borders. But instead of closing the borders off completely, the proposal is to vaccinate everyone coming in. What could possibly go wrong.

7. Global Canada And 18MillionWomen

One area that was identified in our brainstorming with Canadian leaders was renewed Canadian leadership on family planning and reproductive health and rights. Over the past year Global Canada worked with other Canadian civil society actors to convene a gathering of global experts on reproductive health. The recommendations from this gathering (summarized at www.18millionwomen.ca) played an important role in Canada’s 650M announcement to support women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights announced in March, 2017. Global Canada will be exploring other “proof point” opportunities with the potential of significant global impact.

The Family Planning Initiative has put out a call for Canada to spend at least $500 million each year for 10 years on what it calls sexual and reproductive health and rights. Yes, this would amount to Canada helping to finance genocide abroad by paying for abortions in the 3rd World. Global Canada is one of the groups that is involved in helping push that along.

Nothing says a commitment to saving lives quite like ensuring that there are a lot less of them around.

Posted on

How Conservative Inc. Media Provides Cover For Hoax Being Perpetrated

This is Brian Lilley, who works for the Toronto Sun. Rather than do any in depth reporting on the fraud and hoax that this “pandemic” is, Lilley prefers to run interference for Doug Ford. Instead of holding the Ontario Government to account, his response is: “well, the other guys would have been worse”.

Lilley wants people to look at a symptom (how this is managed), and not the disease (creeping Communist takeover). He’s far from alone.

1. Strategic Uselessness Of Con Inc. Media

Liberal position: More lockdowns, more restrictions, more freedoms taken away. Don’t be selfish and act in individual interest.

Conservative position: Maybe these measures are a bit harsh, but people shouldn’t go around flaunting the rules. They should follow the directions of Public Health.

The effect this has is one of limiting of Overton Window so that public discourse is extremely narrow. An honest discussion of what’s going on is not encouraged by either side. And Conservative Inc. media plays their part in freezing and neutralizing any real opposition.

Very few argue that these measures — which are effectively martial law — are completely wrong, or that the “pandemic” is a manufactured crisis. What they do is criticize details of how it’s implemented.

This is intentional, of course. The goal is not holding Governments accountable for the things they do, but the “illusion” of holding them accountable. This is something completely different.

2. Con Inc. 2-Faced On Media Subsidies

Lorrie Goldstein, in that one tweet, sums up what is wrong with “conservative” outlets in Canada. He feigns outrage at Trudeau for using taxpayer money to prop up unprofitable media. In the next breath, he shrugs it off as necessary to save jobs.

Perhaps their tepid opposition is one of pragmatism: in order to keep the subsidies rolling in, it’s best not to rock the boat too much. The odd shot at Trudeau is allowed, but no serious threats to the status quo are premitted.

Of course, an honourable mention goes to the “charity” of True North Centre for Public Policy. This is what Candice Malcolm, (Jason Kenney’s ex-Staffer), took over and claims to have founded. It was originally the Independent Immigration Aid Association. Even while Malcolm rails against media subsidies, she profits from repurposing an actual charity for tax benefits.

3. More Examples Of Controlled Media

People should follow the rules and obey Public Health guidelines. But at least Hillier is open about his position. Really?

What second wave?

Or take this piece by Spencer Fernando. He calls for Rod Phillips to be fired for taking a trip abroad in December, but Ford apparently gets a pass, despite covering it up. Such hypocrisy. Then again, what can one expect from the National Citizen’s Coalition?

There’s also this juvenile clip from Andrew Lawton. He proposes removing any restriction that a politician gets caught breaking. While amusing, he avoids any real coverage on the deception at the heart of the scam.

These examples are just a tiny bit of what is available online.

In recent days, 2 noticeable themes have emerged:
[1] Criticizing politicians for leaving the country
[2] Borders remain open during “pandemic”

A focus lately is how countless politicians have been caught breaking the rules they insist on for other people.

Interestingly, many in the media don’t take this as an opportunity to reevaluate how dangerous the whole situation is (or isn’t). Instead, the anger is directed at the people not being subjected to the same erosions of their freedoms. Nice trick.

Similarly with the flights coming in. Media in Canada are finally talking about the absurdity of keeping the borders open in a “pandemic”, and not asking why borders should be open at all. The focus becomes on asking if it is safe to allow travellers in.

These tactics are great are directing anger towards people breaking the rules, rather than getting the public to question why those rules exist in the first place. Conservative outlets don’t seem to have much of an issue with stripping our rights away in general. They just argue over the minor details of how to do it. It’s a way to narrow the focus on debate, and limit real discussion.

4. Goal Is To Limit Public Discussion

There isn’t any real opposition in the MSM to Governments imposing martial law, no matter where on the political spectrum they are. Instead,

Putting the spotlight on people like Rod Phillips, breaking his own rules, is a deliberate move. It is done to focus anger on those who are not following along. This is an appeal to emotion, deflecting from having a logical discussion.

A very common tactic is played out here: get people focused on a symptom (hypocritical politicians), and not on the disease (erosion of basic rights). Too many in Canada will spend their time covering the symptoms exclusively.

Keep in mind that Con Inc. media has very low regard for the growing resistance to these power grabs. These people are not allies, and cannot be trusted. Legitimate voices are ignored, or dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

5. Questions That Need To Be Asked

Here some difficult questions that must always be in the public eye. Before accepting the official narrative at face value, they have to be answered. Unfortunately, we aren’t getting this from the media giants.

  • Has this virus ever been isolated?
  • What’s the real fatality rate?
  • How many people have it, and have recovered?
  • Why use PCR tests, when its creator says this isn’t their purpose?
  • What’s the error rate of PCR tests?
  • What’s the error rate of antibody tests?
  • Why bother with rapid-tests if the test itself is flawed?
  • Do masks actually work?
  • How are group sizes (or bubbles) determined?
  • Where did the 2m distancing requirement come from?
  • Why are hospitals really being emptied out?
  • Why are other causes of death being downplayed?
  • Why are deaths mis-labelled to drive up the CV count?
  • How do you determine “non-essential” businesses?
  • Why are Governments so eager to shut businesses down?
  • Is this all just an excuse to implement social changes?
  • Was the “Great Reset” laid out in advance?
  • Why are laws written to give health officers dictator powers?
  • Are we legally obligated to follow WHO’s IHR?
  • Did the WHO actually write the 2005 Quarantine Act?
  • How many politicians actually oppose what is going on?
  • Have politicians been bribed or threatened into compliance?
  • Was all of this planned out?

6. 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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

This is what a small site can come up with, given enough time and hard work. Yet the mainstream media Canada in can’t provide proof that this “pandemic” is entirely manufactured?

Posted on

Can Plaintiffs/Defendants Testify As Expert Witnesses In Their Own Cases?

This piece is going to be a bit different. It’s an effort to answer a question: can interested parties also serve as experts in the same case? It will look at an example, using Ontario as a model.

The instinctive answer would be no, this is a serious conflict of interest. But let’s look a bit deeper. Remember, this is just for information, and there’s no need for anyone to overreact.

1. Important Links

Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure
Ontario Law Society: Rule 3.4 (Conflicts Of Interest)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, October 2019
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, July 2020

2. Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure

RULE 4.1 DUTY OF EXPERT
.
DUTY OF EXPERT
.
4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
.
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
.
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
.
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.
.
Duty Prevails
.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.

According to Rule 4.1.01(1) and (2), the answer likely is no. A person who is a Plaintiff or Defendant is by nature an interested party. If the person has a vested interest (financial or otherwise), then overcoming that conflict of interest would be difficult.

3. What Expert Reports Will Include (Ontario)

(2.1) A report provided for the purposes of subrule (1) or (2) shall contain the following information:
.
1. The expert’s name, address and area of expertise.
.
2. The expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.
.
3. The instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding.
.
4. The nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates.
.
5. The expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range.
.
6. The expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including,
i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
ii. a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
iii. a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
.
7. An acknowledgement of expert’s duty (Form 53) signed by the expert. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 48.

Rule 53.03 of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure outlines what is expected by expert witness to submit in their reports to the Court, in advance of trial. It’s a pretty good outline for the contents.

4. OLS Rules Of Professional Conduct

SECTION 3.4 CONFLICTS
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest
3.4-1 A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under the rules in this Section.

Commentary
[1] As defined in rule 1.1-1, a conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person. Rule 3.4-1 protects the duties owed by lawyers to their clients and the lawyer-client relationship from impairment as a result of a conflicting duty or interest. A client’s interests may be seriously prejudiced unless the lawyer’s judgment and freedom of action on the client’s behalf are as free as possible from conflicts of interest.

[2] In addition to the duty of representation arising from a retainer, the law imposes other duties on the lawyer, particularly the duty of loyalty. The duty of confidentiality, the duty of candour and the duty of commitment to the client’s cause are aspects of the duty of loyalty. This rule protects all of these duties from impairment by a conflicting duty or interest.

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients. c.f. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649. The bright line rule holds that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients’ consent. The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated. The scope of the bright line rule is limited. It provides that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client. Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings. Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client’s law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

Consent
3.4-2 A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.

Having an expert witness as a Plaintiff or Defendant is a conflict. It gets even trickier when there are other clients involved in the same case. The duty of the expert is to the court first and foremost. The Ontario Law Society, (a.k.a. Law Society of Upper Canada), has strict rules against members engaging in conflicts of interest.

5. Supreme Court: Bright Red Line Rule

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

Cases Cited
.
Referred to: R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1815), 19 Ves. Jun. 261, 34 E.R. 515; Bricheno v. Thorp (1821), Jacob 300, 37 E.R. 864; Taylor v. Blacklow (1836), 3 Bing. (N.C.) 235, 132 E.R. 401; Rakusen v. Ellis, [1912] 1 Ch. 831; Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bolkiah v. KPMG, [1999] 2 A.C. 222; Moffat v. Wetstein (1996), 1996 CanLII 8009 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (3d) 371; Canadian Pacific Railway v. Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson (1998), 1998 CanLII 5073 (MB CA), 23 C.P.C. (4th) 55; De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc., 2006 SKQB 101, 278 Sask. R. 171; Toddglen Construction Ltd. v. Concord Adex Developments Corp. (2004), 34 C.L.R. (3d) 111.

(f) The Bright Line Rule
.
[27] In Neil, this Court (per Binnie J.) stated that a lawyer may not represent a client in one matter while representing that client’s adversary in another matter, unless both clients provide their informed consent. Binnie J. articulated the rule thus:

The bright line is provided by the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. [Emphasis in original; para. 29]

[28] The rule expressly applies to both related and unrelated matters. It is possible to argue that a blanket prohibition against concurrent representation is not warranted with respect to unrelated matters, where the concrete duties owed by the lawyer to each client may not actually enter into conflict. However, the rule provides a number of advantages. It is clear. It recognizes that it is difficult — often impossible — for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests of different clients when those interests are fundamentally adverse. Finally, it reflects the fact that the lawyer-client relationship is a relationship based on trust. The reality is that “the client’s faith in the lawyer’s loyalty to the client’s interests will be severely tried whenever the lawyer must be loyal to another client whose interests are materially adverse”: Restatement of the Law, Third: The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, § 128(2), at p. 339

The “bright red line” has been explicitly stated to lawyers who represent clients with opposing interests. However, the idea of representing an expert witness is an interesting twist.

Though the language differs across jurisdictions, experts are considered “Friends of the Court”, neutral people who can provide unbiased information and opinion for a Judge and/or Jury.

True, experts are paid for their time by someone. That alone does not render them useless, as they do have a role to play. But what happens when the Expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

While the Lawyer’s Clients (the Experts and non-Experts) could conceivably agree that this conflict of interest should be set aside, what about opposing Parties? Could it not result in an unfair Trial by stacking the deck against them?

Something seems off about this.

6. Such A Conflict In Ongoing Case?!?!

Pages 39-43 of the Statement of Claim spell out the qualifications and education of Denis Rancourt. And yes, it is quite impressive. However, no facts are pleaded to demonstrate that Rancourt has been harmed in any way by these restrictions, or that he has suffered any losses. He is clearly being introduced as an expert witness.

It’s not just that Rancourt is to be paid a fee for his time and trouble. That would be one thing. Here, he is a Plaintiff in an $11 million lawsuit — which he doubles as an Expert in. It stands to reason that he could make $1 to $2 million is the case is successful, which is a conflict of interest. Even if he is unbiased, this conflict will not be lost on the Court — or the other lawyers.

Is this normal? Are Experts typically interested Parties in the cases they participate in? Is there some exception or clause in the law that allows for this to happen? Is this a common practice that just isn’t discussed much? This appears to be the sort of thing that would jeopardize fair proceedings, but who knows?

Note: this is not an attempt to defend the nonsense that has gone on Federally, Provincially, Municipally and even in other countries. All of those people should be tried for crimes against humanity. The CV hoax is extensively outlined in this series. However, all problems need to be called out.

There are of course other issues, such as missing service addresses, and no defenses filed, but they have been addressed elsewhere.

The Statement of Claim was released publicly, but with most Plaintiff names redacted. Anyone who wants the unedited version can get a copy for free from the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division) in Toronto.