Daring to share comments on Bill C-293 with the Standing Committee on Health
But first, a little civics lesson - How a Private Member's Bill works...
(UPDATE as of May 15: just added 3 links with info via Dr. Meryl Nass)
For starters, here is just a bit of background on the legislative process in Canada:
A Bill is a proposal for a new law. Usually bills are brought forward by Ministers or the Caucus (whole group) of one party or another. But bills can also be proposed by single Members of Parliament. Then they are called Private Members’ Bills. (I am not sure which staff members in which departments assist the private members or give them templates to follow when they want to present their proposed laws as private members bills.)
Bills get debated during set periods when the House of Commons is in session (i.e. when all the MPs are there and are scheduled to talk about bills and other issues.) We will see that a Private Member’s Bill can only be discussed during the time allowed for private members contributions. When that time runs out, the discussion is over or gets tabled for another time.
Each time a Bill gets discussed, one refers to that discussions as a “Reading” of the Bill. After 2 readings, where there is general consensus that the Bill should likely go ahead, possibly with changes to content or wording, it is referred to a committee. At some point it is brought back to the House of Commons for a third reading. If it passes that step by a majority vote, it moves on over to the Senate, where it too, goes through three readings and a committee phase. Then it generally goes to the office of the Governor General for “Royal Assent” and is then implemented by the bureaucrats in the various departments.
Recently, it appears bills are becoming shorter on details, with just the general intentions outlined and voted on, with the proviso that government department bureaucrats will work out the details later. The term “administrative state” is used when so many details are in the hands of unelected government bureaucrats (who may or may not be subjected to lots of corporate lobbying) that decisions that affect the lives of ordinary citizens are NOT really in the hands of people who can be held accountable by removing or returning them to Parliament at each election.
Canadians can see which bills are under discussion in the House of Commons and/or in the Senate and can also tell at which step along the way each bill is by looking here:
https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1&billtype=4&politicalaff=4
And they can set the search terms as needed, for example:
The coloured boxes along the bottom show how far each Bill has already come through the process. Sometimes Bills originate in the Senate and then move through the House of Commons for three readings, etc.
I was interested in reading this Bill and found this status update here:
https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
I learned that the first reading took place 11 months ago (June 2022) and that the second followed 8 months later (February 2023).
Thanks to a government commitment to transparency, it is possible for Canadians to read over the transcript of the discussions on bills. For example here is the transcript of the second reading: https://openparliament.ca/bills/44-1/C-293/?singlepage=1
Aside from a little sniping back and forth, the bulk of the discussion was around setting up an independent committee to review the government’s pandemic response.
Then, on this website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/HESA/meeting-62/evidence under Evidence, I found the transcript of the discussion of this bill as it went to the Standing Committee on Health (HESA). I could also choose to view the video recording of the discussion of the committee members as they asked questions of the MP who had proposed the bill.
Here too, much of the discussion circulated around the need for a truly independent inquiry into the management of COVID-19 in Canada as a starting point in order to consider what changes should be put into this new bill for the next time around.
I noted one of the committee members (Don Davies, BC NDP) said this about the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
I think it's quite clear that this capacity mandate was replete with successes and failures during the COVID pandemic. I'll touch on a few of them.
The agency underestimated the potential danger of COVID, and they continued to assess the risk as low until a week after the WHO had declared a global pandemic. A scathing internal PHAC audit released in January of 2021 found limited public health expertise at the agency and a lack of epidemiologists. They found a lack of emergency response management expertise and capacity within the agency. Communications were identified as terrible. PHAC was missing sufficient skills and capacity for risk communications. Dr. Tam said that she received information in the wrong format with inaccuracies.
and later on
I just want to tell you that I think you've done an excellent job in identifying the factors that ought to be looked at. If COVID taught us one thing, it's that PHAC was not able to deliver the mandate it was given. We would be remiss as parliamentarians if we didn't recognize that and come up with a new way of holding them accountable to make sure that, when the next pandemic comes—and I'm told it's not a matter of if but when—we are not caught flat-footed and that we learn from the lessons of COVID. I think the second half of your bill does that, Nate, so thank you.
(boldface mine)
Another element that comes clear from the discussion both at Second Reading and in Committee is the intentional alignment of the Bill with the United Nation and WHO’s
One Health initiative. Apparently Health Canada and our Agriculture Department already have cooperation under the UN’s One Health banner.
https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/one-health-joint-plan-action-2022-2026
For more background on the UN’s One Health, please listen to Dr. Meryl Nass in a recent conversation with an independent journalist who is treading where mainstream/corp/gov funded media fear to go…. In the 1990s Dr. Nass provided expert testimony to Canadian lawmakers on the impact of bioweapons like anthrax on the military. She has been very closely watching US and supranational government agencies once she realized there are those who are willing to sacrifice human life for profit and control. Here is a clip: https://brightlightnews.com/the-who-wants-to-run-global-pandemic-policies-declare-climate-change-lockdowns-dr-meryl-nass/ and here are two articles, both recommended reading to provide context for the concerns with this Bill.
++++++++++
I am now switching the focus and am sharing my comments on the bill in question with the members of HESA:
As a close follower of Covid Science (not the censored, corporate Covid Science we saw on TV for nearly three years) I as a private citizen & educator have been trying to translate what may seem to be “complex sciencey data” into “layperson language”. As I live my life intersecting with various circles of people, I have seen myself as a networker of information, keeping an ear open as to who seems to be missing which information — information which I have had the luxury of time to pick up from elsewhere and naturally share. A closet journalist at heart, I have always been a passer on of information. Where or not that info was welcomed.
In that vein, I am daring to address members of Parliament on the Standing Committee on Health with thoughts gathered from having “an ear to the ground” in circles OUTSIDE of the mainstream media. I am just imagining that by some coincidence, I could have the luxury of one on one meeting time with them, perhaps over coffee (or juice) somewhere!
Here goes:
A Citizens’ comments re: Bill C-293
Little real discussion on key details
Given that the transcripts of the first and second reading and the committee discussion were limited to only two general topics (an inquiry and the apparent need to align legislation with the UN’s One Health initiative) I am truly worried that the Bill will now pass through to the third reading for a cursory approval WITHOUT ANYONE LOOKING AT THE DETAILS it includes. (Is this always how things go?) Read on for a few of the details I am concerned about.
The title “Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness”
Let's be vary of something that can be turned into a forever war: the War on Drugs; the War on Terror; the War on Pandemics... we have seen in the past who benefits from these totally unwinnable initiatives... Money that goes into battling drugs, we all know about the CIA's fighting drugs on the one hand and selling them on the other... ditto for the War on Terror... a non-stop shovelling of money toward Big military manufacturers. As we are seeing, now "pandemic preparedness" has the same feel -- IF it amounts to vast numbers of money enriching Big Corp (BigPharma, BigTech for tracking apps, BigMedia etc. etc.)
Let's prepare for any health onslaught defensively -- providing all Canadians with solid information as to how sleep, good nutrition, exercise, sunlight, Vitamin D supplementation in the winter can bolster the immune system. Let's look at the data coming out on how proteolytic enzyme supplementation and strong gut flora, as well as well known antiviral medication helped keep infectious diseases such as COVID-19 at bay. Let us build strong defences against any potential pathogen the same way - by removing excess sugars and junkfood from the grocery shelves, by teaching kids and adults about seriously making healthy food choices and making those affordable. Why doesn't every household know about growing veggies affordably year round this way: https://vivosun.com/Grow_Tent-c2?
The lack of Emergency Preparedness Expertise
Great idea to have an advisory committee! This committee MUST reflect not only public health but also wide ranging emergency response capability. PLEASE VIEW the testimony to the NCI by Col David Redman found here:
https://rumble.com/v2l9jhw-canada-deviated-from-strategic-pandemic-response-lt.-colonel-david-redman-r.html as it explains how EVERY jurisdiction is ALWAYS at the ready... how full scale emergency response plans are always in place, just to be triggered when needed. This includes plans for pandemics. Col. Redman was Alberta's former head of emergency response planning and would be an excellent guest to your committee meetings, alongside another NCI expert witness who explained the math behind risk calculation. Anyone who moves ahead to vote on this Bill needs a basic understanding of "Risk". See: https://rumble.com/v2l6h5s-risk-management-and-covid-19-policies-dean-beaudry-red-deer-day-1-nci.html. You will be shocked to see how the risk of not vaccinating young people against vaccinating young people shows up on standard risk prediction charts (if not biased by the grossly false modelling coming out of the UK that so drove fear into everyone's mind.... until it didn't for some and continued doing so for others!)
Transparency & Accountability!!
YES! I am glad it is stated on paper as a given that Parliament is committed to promoting transparency and accountability....
YEAH!!.. Now we need to see that promise in action. So when the testimonies at the NCI of regulatory lawyer Shawn Buckley for example become available, please follow that through with transparency. HOW and BY WHOM was legislation changed with reference to COVID-19 vaccines NOT needing the same proofs of safety and efficacy as prior products? Who pushed those changes through away from what was previously (and still) showing on the books that to be approved vaccines need to demonstrate three different trials of at least 3000 people each showing safety & efficacy? Who is currently behind the proposed changes to have these lower standards applied for all human and veterinary drugs and other products in order to promote 'Innovation'? Since when is INNOVATION of higher priority than Health and Safety? Can someone look into the role that our current Health Minister had previously on behalf of industry and innovation and see whether he still has sway in pushing aside safeguards that Canadians continue to expect?
Thank you also for your commitment to the "lessons learned" from COVID-19. This is another reason HESA members need to take the time to learn the lessons others are reporting on via the NCI!
Questioning the apparent need for the Alliance with the UN (One Health initiative)
This sounds lovely in theory... did you simply mean a bill that respects the need for welfare of all parts of the environment as well as human wellbeing? Or was the intent to align with this new international One Health initiative as described on various pages of the WHO? It sounds an awful lot like the World Government Summit that took place earlier this year with ZERO coverage in mainstream media, not anything a clear thinking nation that values its sovereignty would normally sign on to.
This is from the official description of One Health:
Providing policy relevant scientific assessment on the emergence of health crises arising from the human-animal-ecosystem interface, as well as research gaps; and
Guidance on development of a long-term strategic approach to reducing the risk of zoonotic pandemics, with an associated monitoring and
early warning framework, and the synergies needed to institutionalize and implement the One Health approach, including in areas that drive pandemic risk.This raises a lot of red flags for people who are aware of how the concept of zoonotic diseases was weaponized by those behind the purposeful manipulation of the naturally occuring SARS virus into a bioweapons grade pathogen under the cover of it being naturally mutated from the animal world. If you have not yet heard expert patent researcher Dr. David Martin speak on these issues, please take the time to do so, for example at minute 13 of this recent recording: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-report-or-systematic-review-of-the-science-or-may-4-or-12-30pm-et/fluoride-report-systematic-review-of-the-science-may-4/
Another red flag is how climate scientists are being sidelined by globalist organizations (just as was the case with Covid Scientists) to support the unscientific premise of the War on Carbon - Naturally cyclical fluctuations in the climate, have, for a number of years, been attributed to an overproduction of carbon which is now seen by followers of this line of thinking as the rationale for "innovations" which once again, will enrich BigCorp and end up harming the population. While this may seem like a digression, it is not. Globalist organizations are quickly moving the population to once again give up its freedoms and personal sovereignty for the so-called "greater good" without any actual evidence to support their claims. Imagine we all sign on to a Globalist WHO One world government type of One Health initiative... and so to "save the climate" the WHO declares that we all need to reduce our caloric intake, and stay at home, while major CEOs jetset around the planet. So then food production plants are considered excess and get burned down. Cattle are considered dangerous to the climate and are injected with mRNA vaccines, "accidentally dying" of some "zoonotic disease"...people are unemployed, lose their homes, live on the streets, become depressed and have easy access to illicit drugs or have the state offer to help them end their lives.
As bizarre, conspiratorial, and incomprehensible as all of this seems to everyone who only watches mainstream government/corporate funded media, those outside of that bubble are already receiving verified reports of all of that happening currently via the uncensored independent media/social media.
Suggestion: remove the wording ONE HEALTH for its unfortunate 'coincidental' overlap with something many Canadians already fear and ensure that the wording reflects a Bill that originates within this country and removes any potential association with the WHO.
Going beyond lip service to truly supporting indigenous communities
Yes! Two quick reminders: Check with existing emergency planners how they already deal with the need to have sustained collaboration among all levels involved.
And: Be sure to go beyond mentioning outreach to Indigenous communities as simple "virtue signalling". Ask yourselves:
» How many Indigenous communities still do not have proper water treatment facilities?
» How many Indigenous communities received flyers from Health Canada blatantly lying that treatment for COVID-19 did not exist while the governments were suppressing known treatments?
» How many graves in the cemeteries of Indigenous communities are only there because of this top-down Pharma funded push to suppress inexpensive, natural and off-patent medications?
» How many deaths occurred because of the "virtuous" push to have "vulnerable" populations get the vax first, ahead of other population groups and without proper testing? This at a time when it was already clear that people living in even more crowded situations in countries dealing with malaria were NOT DYING AT ALL from COVID because of their "inoculation" against SARS-CoV-2 due to its closeness to malaria. Hydroxychloroquine and related compounds were known for their preventative properties and this knowledge was suppressed while our indigenous populations were pushed to roll up their sleeves. Need some proof? Go visit local cemeteries to see whether the 2022 count after many people were given multiple doses is much higher than the one for 2020 while COVID raged highest! I would guess that many indigenous communities will be even more sceptical than the rest of the population about anything coming with WHO 'catch phrases' like "OneHealth."
Suggesting expert & non-partisan Advisory Committee members
I noted the chat in the committee meeting referencing a need to pick unbiased advisory committee members. I would wholeheartedly agree that an advisory committee made up of MPs would not fit the bill. Within a few days, all of the 24 days of hearings held at the National Citizens’ Inquiry will have been completed, leaving behind a spectacular list of public-service minded witnesses with proven expertise in all angles of this past national emergency. Who better than these stellar individuals to serve as the advisory committee for this Bill?
Allow me to be so bold as to suggest you start the process of developing this advisory committee by contacting any number of these expert witnesses. I am providing links to their NCI testimonies to give you an idea of the topics that the advisory committee will need to address in some way. This list could be expanded to include other expert witnesses testifying in Quebec City and Ottawa. (I have not contacted anyone on this list in advance of sending the names your way but would trust they would make themselves available if at all possible.)
Lt. Colonel David Redman, Emergency Management expert
Dean Beaudry, Risk Management Specialist
Dr. Natalie Bjorklund-Gordon, expert in Epidemiology and Genetics
Dr. Laura Braden molecular biologist with a focus in immunology. Her passion for the last 15 years has been immunopathology, disease resistance and host-pathogen interactions using advances in genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and functional immunology.
Dr. Christopher Shaw, currently on unpaid leave from the positions of Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and in the Department of Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience (UBC). His chilling report about the post-vaccine onset of neurological conditions such as Alzheimers’ & Lou Gehrig Diseases, MS and other spike protein or mRNA induced disturbances; their slow development followed by rapid declines, with each incidence pulling 2 people out of the economy - the patient as well as the full time caregiver.
Dr. Madga Havas, professor emerita with expertise in environmental toxicology, including electromagnetic radiation. Her early work was on acid rain. She is speaking on the correlation between the presence of 5G towers and COVID-19 infection rates.
Dr. Steven Pelech, Researcher & Professor in Neurology speaking on potential adverse effects and implications of the vaccine on the human immune system.
Dr. Jessica Rose - computational biologist, VAERS data analyst, and much more
Dr. Chris Shaw — neuroscientist; researcher into the early identification of Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Alzheimers, MS, etc. noting now the neurological impacts of COVID-19 injections are similar + twitter threads
Deanna Mcleod - involved in clinical trial design and oversight re: Pfizer + Excerpt on the call for Citizen Feedback re: the Backdoor Expansion Program of the Food and Drug Act (Deadline to provide feedback = April 26, 2023)
Dr. Maria Gutschi, PharmD, discussing concerns with the trials of the COVID-19 injections
Alan Cassels, administrator speaking about the UBC Therapeutics Initiative, an organization that analyzes pharmaceuticals
Shawn Buckley, regulatory lawyer; lead council for the National Citizen's Inquiry (his testimony to the NCI will be posted here: https://rumble.com/user/NationalCitizensInquiryCA
Dr. Bruce Pardy, law professor, Queen's University
Daniel Bulford, Canadian Prime Ministers Former Security Detail
dependent upon availability of course...
While a perfect gender balance is a nice thing to aim for, it is more important that all required areas of expertise are covered.
I will refrain from commenting on every section of this Bill here, but I must say that it almost seems as if the wording of this bill follows a very one-sided template... as if it was intended as a call to repeat exactly the same failed mitigation steps we just went through with the COVID-19 pandemic.
I propose waiting with edits to this bill until the NCI report has been completed, as then completely different sections might be added and others adopted or removed completely.
There is NO POINT in ramming this bill through with our collective "eyes closed" in the meantime.
For example:
Where in the manufacturing capacity listed in the bill is the capacity to manufacture non-vaccine therapeutics like proteolytic enzymes (i.e. Nattokinase) and Vitamin D? In a sunshine starved country for half the year, the fact that nearly all hospitalized COVID patients were Vitamin D deficient should not go disregarded. Vitamin D needs to be freely available and manufacturers would need to make it! Very likely it is the same for Nattokinase, etc. The production of both on a population wide scale would need to be included in the manufacturing capacity plan.
This focus on vaccines only and also digital contract tracing seems so outdated now, given all that we are learning at these public inquiries.
It is my hope that at your next meeting you decide to pull back on the current revision of Bill C-293 before it hits the House for third reading. Given the wealth of information coming out at the NCI, you may wish to start with the daily overviews prepared by the Ambassador of the NCI, Michelle Leduc Catlin as a means of orienting yourselves moving forward.
MICHELLE LEDUC CATLIN’S DAILY SUMMARIES
A great way to get an overview of key themes and stories (in reverse chronological order with more entries to come….
Vancouver Day 3
It is my sincere hope that you will make use of these suggestions.
:-)
As a Canadian you are one of my new heroes!..thank you for sharing your knowledge and for being so exact with your words and information..