CSN PRESS ROOM - Canadians Seek Defeat of Bill C-293 re: Pandemic Prevention
PRESS RELEASE & BRIEFING NOTE - 09/24/24
CANADIANS SEEK THE DEFEAT OF THE PANDEMIC PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS BILL AS IT GOES TO 2nd READING in SENATE
CSNews September 24, 2024 Contact H. Noerenberg CanadianShareableNews@proton.me
Journalists with an interest in Health & Wellness, in Municipal, Provincial, Territorial and Federal Public & Health Policy, in Emergency Response, in Global Affairs, in Science & Technology, in Finance, in Anti-Globalist Activism, Agriculture, Hunting & Forestry, in small, medium and large Businesses, in topics around Justice & Indigenous Affairs, in issues surrounding the Medical Profession, the Elderly, the Immunocompromised, the Vaccine Injured and those with Chronic Illnesses and in Senate Matters, etc. are invited to take note of the current developments as well as the background context provided below with reference to Bill C-293.
One of the many items on the Order Paper for the current fall sitting of the Senate is the Second Reading of Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill initiated by Liberal MP Nathan Erskine-Smith. The Bill might possibly be on the Order Paper on Tuesday, Sept 24, as it has been pushed back each day since September 17 when the current sitting started.
A wave of citizen pushback is now being felt in the offices of Canadian Senators as over 177,000 emails have been sent from one citizen initiative alone, along with countless other emails, tweets, phone calls, etc. and multiple other citizen initiatives underway.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
From May to October 2023 a number of Canadian organizations presented briefs to the Standing Committee on Health (HESA) outlining their concerns with the Bill, in particular around the provisions to regulate and phase out commercial agricultural activities. These included the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Chicken Farmers of Canada, an organization representing 2,800 chicken farmers across the country. This organization pointed out that the Bill “includes content which goes beyond being prepared for a pandemic, and includes a negative, biased angle towards animal husbandry”. The Canadian Physiotherapy Association wrote to suggest that their profession be represented in the yet to be formed advisory committee to review the response to the pandemic and make recommendations. Despite the many concerns raised by those submitting briefs, the Standing Committee on Health returned the Bill back to the House of Commons for third reading without substantially amending it.
Prior to the second reading in the House of Commons, MB Conservative MP Ted Falk listed off many concerns with the bill, highlighting in particular the need of clarity on how the advisory committee referenced in the bill would be set up. Of note is the fact that the recording of his remarks received 16 K views in the past year (compared to just double or triple digits for his others.) This concern, as well as a few others, were raised in the October 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Health.
Yet at no time has the question of the true origin of pandemics been considered or whether measures such as reducing human/animal contact would truly make a difference in pandemic prevention. Information about biological risks from anthropic sources (i.e. gain of function research connected to the bioweapons industry) seems not to have been referenced publicly in any discussions on Bill C-293 so far. It appears that Canadian Parliamentarians are unaware of the 71 occurrences from 1975 to 2016 of the release of pathogens with pandemic potential related to biodefense, bioweapon, bioterrorism or related research. Or that left on their own, naturally occurring pathogens from animal to human transfer are not particularly toxic.
A set of Briefing Notes is being circulated alongside of this Press Release for further reference. Both documents are being made available here as part of the new CSN Press Room started by a public educator with a background in health care advocacy.
It appears that Bill C-293 is now before the Senate WITHOUT anyone having addressed the need to determine “lessons learned” from the COVID-19 pandemic; without any reference to the most comprehensive citizen-run inquiry into Canada’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis; without any clarification on the nature of the yet to be established advisory committee; without any definition of terms (which appears standard practice in other pieces of legislation); without any awareness of the role of bioweapons vs. animal human pathogen transfer in causing pandemics; without references to the lines of authority when it comes to jurisdictional decision making powers; without any specifics of the scope and budget to be granted the as yet undefined office of the ‘national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator’ and without addressing the concerns of the groups who submitted briefs a year ago.
Finally, Bill C-293 is also before the Senate without a clear understanding of how this piece of legislation aligns with the distinct steps toward global governance being undertaken in many fora to which Canada is or is not a party. These include: the World Health Organization, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the Global Governance Forum which announces: As in the 1940s, growing global crises today call for new approaches. Despite the allure of national sovereignty-based ideas of protectionism or isolationism, it is often more, not less, international cooperation that can deliver the future we need and seek. In fact, in the report of the Roundtable on the Human Future held in July 2024 jointly by the Council for the Future and the Club of Rome, the term “governance” appears 55 times. Additionally, it appears that our Canadian Parliamentarians are also not aware of the implications of this recent call to action by Global Governance Forum Executive Director Augusto Lopez-Claros: “Create an Earth System Council, giving the UN system the capacity to pass binding legislation to protect our planetary environmental system and the common goods it provides, with necessary enforcement mechanisms.”
With next to no references in Bill-C293 to the delivery of health care in a pandemic or preventative measures like assuring for clean water and nutritious food, sanitation, an efficient health care and emergency response system, and given the prominence in Bill C-293 of changes to land use restricting the encroachment of urban development on wildlife habitats, Canadians aware of the US based Wildlands Project can be excused for wondering whether Bill C-293 is simply purposefully incorrectly named and not about illness, care and prevention at all but rather a veiled attempt to achieve other purposes.
Note that other than in small scale publications like the tech blog “The Sociable” and the Canadian Shareable News project these global governance news items are receiving little media coverage. A notable exception is Chris George, writing for the Niagara Independent. He has provide this index of background articles on these topics.
Canadians aware of ill defined “necessary enforcement mechanisms” as well as the nature of “key cooperative measures or agreements” with “key international organizations” can well wonder whether Canada will repeat or resist top-down pandemic mitigation measures in the future. Abundant evidence the failures of WHO COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures has long been published in peer reviewed and other professional literature. Many Canadians believe that to avoid a repeat of these failures, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill should ensure that lines authority and the burden of proof before enacting polices are made much more evident.
Associated News:
On September 11, 2024, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 1425, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act, that will ensure the White House does not enter into any agreement with the WHO on pandemic preparedness without first getting the constitutionally required advice and consent from the U.S. Senate.
The US citizen group Sovereignty Coalition has been following related news on their website.
###
BRIEFING NOTE RE: UPCOMING SECOND READING OF BILL C-293 (THE PANDEMIC PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS BILL)
Purpose:
The purpose of this briefing note is to clarify the shortcomings of the Bill and to present a recommendation that it not be passed.
Background:
Bill C-293 is a private member’s bill introduced by MP Erskine-Smith on June 17, 2022. It draws heavily from “One Health” principles presented by the World Health Organization (WHO). These arise out of a concerted focus to ensure that the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are implemented globally. These, in turn, have their origins in the concerns brought forward by environmentalists to the Earth Summit in 1992.
Primary in the One Health approach to pandemic prevention is the concern about the ‘spillover’ of viruses from nature to humans, due to close contact. While it is true that humans who live in close contact to animals can be impacted by the transfer of viruses, they do also develop resilience over time. Yet individuals who have not previously been exposed to these viruses are severely impacted and can fall severely ill and die. The classic case is that of the pathogens brought to North America during the 16th & 17th century colonial voyages of discovery and the ensuing transatlantic slave trade. Today however, because of international travel, it is far less likely that entire populations exist without already some prior exposure to many circulating viruses.
Bill C-293 makes reference to the “One Health” approach which it defines as a “multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface”. It claims that this approach “is central to preventing the risk of future pandemics”. References in the Bill to reducing pandemic risk by regulating and phasing out commercial activities involving “high-risk species” and by dealing with changes in land use to limit disturbed habitats, deforestation, etc. all underline the intent to limit human/animal interaction as the primary means of pandemic prevention.
What is missing in this Bill is any evidence of a far greater cause of pandemics than viral “spillover” from animals to humans — that of intentional efforts within the bioweapons development community to intentionally alter viruses in order to make them more virulent and thus suited to purposes of biowarfare. Every major pandemic in the last 60 years originated through ‘gain of function’ research, including SARS-CoV-2. In fact, 71 instances of "biological risks from anthropic sources” have occurred between 1975 and 2016 alone, with the majority arising out of purposes related to biodefense, bioweapon, bioterrorism or related research, often accidentally released. These range from Anthrax and Ebola to Foot and Mouth disease to the Marburg virus and SARS-CoV-1 originating from places such as Fort Dietrich, the UNC Chapel Hill (both US military bases) and the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg as well as in the National Institute of Virology in Beijing and others. The fact that all of the listed instances of genetic alterations of naturally occurring pathogens for reasons related to biowarfare clearly CONTRAVENE the 1972 UN Biological Weapons Convention has remained unaddressed for six decades. Also unaddressed are the numerous patent applications for components of both the SARS-CoV-2 virus AND vaccines made BEFORE the officially announced ‘discovery’ of SARS -CoV-2 in Wuhan in late 2019. Furthermore, the role of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in supporting/leading vaccine development is also not well known. It is clear that on their own and absent additional man-made ‘gains’ to their ‘functions’, pathogens collected from the animal world are an insufficient base upon which to place the greater focus of Canada’s pandemic preparation. As outlined by one analyst writing about “Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing”, it is also clear that the purposeful collection of pathogens from the natural world and their transfer to pharmaceutical companies for further production of associated ‘vaccine’ products via the new ‘warp speed’ mRNA template technique is the major motivation behind the contentious WHO Pandemic Treaty.
Until such ‘gain of function' research, with its obvious implications for accidental or intentional release into the population, is completely done away with, the singular focus on pandemic prevention by reducing animal to human contact falls far short of the many health and policy based recommendations gleaned from over 330 witness testimonies gathered over 27 days across Canada, which are not referenced in the Bill at all.
As the Bill made its way through the House of Commons, MPs Ted Falk and Don Davies highlighted the lack of specificity around how future implementation is to account for ‘lessons learned’ in the past, despite these references:
PREAMBLE:
Whereas it is critical to build on the lessons learned from previous outbreaks of serious diseases…
(3) (d) [Minister of Health or the ministers referred to in subsection (2)… must]
take into account the recommendations made by the advisory committee following its review of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada.
In fact, MP Don Davies called for a full inquiry into Canada’s handling of COVID-19, and yet, MPs allowed the Bill to get up to and through Third Reading without such an inquiry and without clarifying how which advisory committee would review what and when and how the results of that review would inform the contents of the bill. There appears also to have been no input into the Bill from Canadian emergency planning and management professionals. Well before 2019, coping with pandemics had been expertly handled by experienced and well practiced emergency planners throughout the country.
Current situation:
A closer look at the UN SDG #3 (Health) reveals the need to address a multiplicity of factors, from clean drinking water to fostering resilience, to good quality childhood development and much more.
A major focus of any country’s pandemic preparedness efforts should be on the promotion and maintenance of good physical and mental health among the population as a first line of defence. This also includes the development of strong natural immunity so that people can resist and overcome illness with ease. And it includes government responses to crises which foster certainty and confidence. Throwing out decades worth of solid emergency management planning to make up policy on the fly was one of the largest mistakes of 2020 and contributed greatly to the mental health crisis that many are still experiencing.
While Bill C-293 was making its way through the House, repeated efforts were made to inform MPs of the existence and content of the National Citizens Inquiry recommendations. It remains unclear which pressures led to these being ignored both by the publicly funded media as well as by government staff and elected officials.
Many professional and lay organizations throughout the country, as well many concerned citizens have pointed out many shortfalls of Bill C-293. (See Addendum for some examples.)
Options:
Senators are now faced with choosing between these two options:
Note: this is only a simplified, high level comparison meant to provide a brief introduction to the complex issues inherent in this Bill.
Recommendations:
That Bill C-293 be stopped and voted down. (Changes needed to completely revamp the approach are beyond the scope of a single committee.)
That an external apolitical body not compromised by industry-related conflicts of interest be struck to seek expert guidance of next steps in the development of future policies to address the important matter of preventing and preparing for all manner of health emergencies. Such a body should include lead emergency planning and management professionals, authors of the recommendations drawn from the independently run National Citizens Inquiry as well as other research professionals who have assembled a sizeable body of peer reviewed and published data around the various interventions used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. As Senators become aware of evidence of deliberate falsehoods presented by those who have been looking after pandemic management and public health in Canada, they will understand why it is important to convene an external body to guide further deliberations on these matters.
That to further inform themselves, Senators review materials such as
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/category/topics/pandemic-management/exit-strategy/ (Includes an interview with Lieutenant Col. David Redman on the emergency management process in pandemics.)
https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/ Commission Chair Ken Drysdale shared highlights of the report: https://rumble.com/v4kjlkw-national-citizens-inquiry-commissioner-chairman-ken-drysdale-overview-of-th.html
This list of expert witnesses at the National Citizen’s Inquiry also doubles as a jump page: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/expert-witnesses/ Six of those professionals provided an update at a recent event hosted by a provincial conservative riding association in Alberta. https://aninjectionoftruth.ca/event-video/
This example of documented public health falsehoods https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/featured/covid-19-mrna-genetic-vaccines-were-pregnant-and-breastfeeding-women-told-the-truth/
(Author’s Note: I am writing this briefing note solely in my role as a concerned citizen, retired teacher and the author of followingthecovidscience.substack.com. While I have volunteered for the National Citizens Inquiry and am a lay member of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, I have drafted this document under my own initiative. It in no way represents either organization mentioned. It is simply my hope that this document assists Senators in grasping the issues at hand.)ADDENDUM:
EXHIBIT A (Source: Canadian Covid Care Alliance, membership email)
EXHIBIT B (Source: Anonymous, circulating online)
EXHIBIT C (Source - Anonymous, circulating online)
REASONS NOT TO PASS BILL C-293…
Canada’s Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill has the potential to infringe on civil liberties, violate individuals' health privacy, grant broad powers to the Minister of Health, and much more. (https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/bill/C-293/third-reading)
Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, which has passed its first reading before the Senate, aims to establish robust measures to mitigate future pandemics. However, a closer look reveals several concerns related to government overreach, health privacy, possible violations of civil liberties, and unclear priorities. As well, it becomes clear that crucial terms are not defined. Which definition of pandemic is being understood? Does an illness need to present "with enormous
numbers of deaths and illness” or is that no longer a requirement for the understanding of that term? Likewise, terms like collaboration, vaccine, One Health, transparency, accountability (by whom, how, when?) are all unspecified. Given the utter lack of transparency and accountability re: government actions following the appearance of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, much more clarification is needed as to how, in the future, government and government officials are to be held accountable. This is missing in the current version of Bill C-293.
One of the primary issues is the bill’s establishment and interlinking of surveillance systems for infectious diseases, both domestically and internationally. The extensive data collection proposed—especially with international linkages involving organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)—raises significant privacy concerns. This could lead to widespread monitoring of citizens’ health data, potentially without their explicit consent.
The legislation also mandates collaboration between the federal government, provincial governments, and Indigenous communities to collect and share health data. This requirement may create data privacy, security, and misuse concerns. It also does not define the scope of such collaboration. If some jurisdictions are forced to implement what is mandated at a federal level, one cannot speak of actual “collaboration.” As well, there is no recognition that in Canada, health care falls within provincial jurisdiction, not federal. As such, a federal bill in which authority is pulled away from provinces and territories, is a violation of our constitutional division of powers.
Another troubling aspect is the bill's broad discretion granted to the Minister of Health and other relevant officials. They are empowered to set pandemic preparedness standards and make far-reaching decisions about public health responses, surveillance, and commercial regulations. The absence of thorough oversight or parliamentary approval for such decisions raises concerns about transparency and accountability, potentially allowing political interests to take precedence over public welfare.
Furthermore, the bill compels the Minister of Health and other officials to "leverage international expertise" by adopting internationally developed pandemic prevention metrics. This could result in Canada aligning with global standards that don’t necessarily reflect its domestic needs, limiting the country’s ability to make independent public health decisions. Additionally, as more information has been revealed about decisions made by international agencies, it has become clear that they have been greatly compromised by industry forces. Global standards were not evidence-backed. There is no reference as to how which global standards are to be agreed upon.
In terms of economic impact, the bill targets commercial activities that "disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk," such as industrial animal agriculture. However, the lack of clarity around what constitutes "disproportionate" could lead to arbitrary decisions, harming industries without solid scientific evidence. This vagueness could spark significant economic disruptions and legal disputes over the scope of such regulations.
The bill’s emphasis on the One Health approach—integrating human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health—may also be problematic. While holistic health is important, this broad approach could lead to sweeping environmental regulations under the guise of pandemic prevention, potentially affecting sectors like farming, forestry, and urban development without clear justifications related to pandemics.
The bill allocates substantial resources to global health equity initiatives, raising concerns that domestic resources could be diverted to international efforts. While there is reference to the need to incorporate lessons learned from previous waves of respiratory illness, there is no indication of when, where and how which lessons learned should be incorporated by whom. There is no recognition in the Bill of the work of the National Citizens Inquiry which heard from over 300 Canadians over 27 days and compiled extensive recommendations covering all aspects of society. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/
Lastly, other than recommend the use of masks, PPE and vaccines, the Bill makes no mention of true illness preventative measures — while tangential topics like climate change, agricultural practices and land use are mentioned, there is no reference to building up the health of Canadians prior to the arrival of any potential infections through proper nutrition, sanitation, sufficient sleep, air quality, etc. There are no references to the determinants of health, nor to factors that strengthen the body’s natural immunity.
In summary, while Bill C-293 claims to be intended to enhance pandemic preparedness, its broad language, expanded surveillance powers, and potential for economic disruption pose significant risks. The bill’s lack of transparency and vague definitions could lead to actions that undermine civil liberties, disrupt key industries, and prioritize global interests over Canada's own. And its lack of references to the largest documented body of Covid-19 “lessons learned” must lead one to conclude that this bill falls far short of meeting its stated objectives.
Great work, thank you!
Lilian Franck's 2018 documentary titled "Trust WHO", prompts critical questions about the World Health Organization credibility on all levels.
https://youtu.be/zJYUgN9BO2I?si=HuR3TyM3nSr5v9kH