Embedded Files
It is one thing to say "Don't do this." It is quite another matter to say "Do that instead."
In order to provide recommendations of an alternate path our Senators can suggest as they vote down C-293, it helps to look to the past first.
And to remember that in Canada, health care falls under PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION.
LESSONS LEARNED: The Preamble of Bill C-293 states: Whereas it is critical to build on the lessons learned from previous outbreaks of serious diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Zika virus disease, tuberculosis, H1N1 flu and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); aSection (2)(f) states describe the state of research in relation to preventing and responding to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics; and Section 3 (d) states: 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 Preparation for the Second Reading of Bill C-293, EACH SENATOR NEEDS TO ASK
Where can I see the list of "lessons learned" from the management of all of the diseases mentioned?
Where can I find a reference list of the "state of the research" around prevention of illness that underpinned the writing of this Bill?
How does the text of this Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness allow for those lessons to be implemented, given there is no reference in the Bill re: actual steps individuals, local health authorities, the medical profession as a whole, including its education and regulatory compoments, as well as the federal health authority can take to reduce the risk of pandemics.
Ensuring robust health among the population should be the primary line of defence, yet this Bill focusses on what to do AFTER a pandemic is declared: testing, contact tracing, PPE, vaccination etc. Why is there more text in the Bill around CLIMATE, AGRICULTURE, LANDUSE AND OTHER TANGENTIAL MATTERS than around reall illness prevention through health maintenance?
As for the "recommendations made by the advisory committee following its review of the response to ...." WHICH ADVISORY COMMITTEE is meant here? Is the Bill referring to Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI)? If so, that should be clearly spelled out. Yet given the lack of awareness of evidence-based research among NACI members back in 2022 (see here) should not some other committee be struck? How can we vote in a Bill that leaves such a crucial item undetermined?
Should "lessons learned" not be embedded BEFORE the final draft of this Bill approved? (What is the point of voting on a document 2 years late? Why not take the time to do this right and Vote AGAINST the bill now?
Given the importance of dealing with actual and perceived conflicts of interest when it comes to every corporte managemement plan, why is that topic not addressed in this Bill? (For more on conflicts of interest related to the procurement and reguation of health products, see here.)
How were pandemics handled BEFORE COVID? What can we learn from the professional emergency planners who have been working behind the scenes in every imaginanable emergency that occured in the past, including pandemics? Who ran the show for example when SARS 1, Swine Flue and even the Ebola scare showed up? They obviously managed things without dragging things out for 4 years, violating the rights of Canadians and causing so much harm. Why were these experts NOT consulted when SARS-CoV-2 hit the news?
Listening to the sworn testimonies of expert emergency management professionals can give our Senators an idea of what is all MISSING from C-293. IF the Bill does not include provisions for actually dealing with the safety and well-being of Canadians in a pandemic, it CAN NOT be passed.
https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/lt-col-david-redman/#1689907599686-b8452d36-bb092849-64af
https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/dean-beaudry/
Bill C-293 was drafted in 2022, well BEFORE the publication of the recommendations pulled together by the National Citizens' Inquiry. Voting on Bill C-293 NOW IN 2024, Senators need to take note of how premature that document was, in light of the vast implications of COVID-19 measures had all ALL aspects of Canadian Society.
Where and when will lessons learned and recommendations made by the Commissioners of the NCI based on testimonies of over 300 Canadians be included in this Bill? Obviously, as the Bill was passed in the House of Commons, NO ONE HAD THE PRESENCE OF MIND to think on their feet and replace the Bill with something totally other. INSTEAD of this Bill, we need:
A toolkit of resources intended for use of the various provinces and territories leaving a limited role for Health Canada.
And a complete withdrawal from the any reponsibilties to support and requirements to abide by the World Health Organizaton.
A commitment to assiting provinces in enacting RECENT evidence based scientific standards in their care for patients in their jurisdiction.
A funding commitment that supports provinces and territories to strengthen the Pillars of Health in their own jurisdictions.
And a commitment to divy up the level at which the recommendations of the National Citizens Inquiry can be carried out - some stem out of areas under federal jurisdiciton such as travel and the justice system. Others are purely provincial.
Section 8 of the National Citizens Commission Report puts all recommendations onto one place.
Below are a few screen caps taken from https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/
They are being shown to give Senators reasons not to pass C-293 - See how many important items that need to be considered when attempting to prevent and prepare for future pandemics are MISSING from the Bill as it currently stands!
In a pandemic, who is to authorize therapeutics and vaccines? Also, vaccines should never be injected DURING a pandemic, we were warned against that practice as that drives the creation of new variants. So any references in Bill C-293 to manufacturing vaccines (2)(k) and ensuring equitable access to vaccines (2)(n) are actually irrelevant to a pandemic context.
There is nothing in the Bill about how and by whom risk/benefit analyses of the various "interventions"
are to be done. It should be clear by now to Senators that even the most ardent proponent of many of these (Dr. Anthony Fauci) has NOT been able to provide solid data on their appropriateness, efficacy, safety, etc.
Another huge issue NOT addressed in C-293 are questions around medical ethics. A major lesson learned needs to be that never again can we have such violations of informed consent. Since the full risk/benefit profile of an intervention was kept from doctors, how could they in turn provide their patients with the full picture to make an informed decision? Senators might not be aware of this sad reality:
Doctors were not given this information and were threatened with a loss of their licence for stating the obvious to their patients (The more often you get the shot, the LESS you are prodcted from illness.) Imagine the inner turmoil our physicians went through, effectively trapping their patients, in order to be able to keep their own jobs secure to support their own families. Is it any wonder that medical practioners were carrying a severe amount of stress? Who would willingly violate their own Duty of Care and allow the mandates to tear apart the precious doctor patient relationships many had built up so long?
No Senator operating ethically can pass Bill C-293. It is clearly a top-down/foreign driven/pro-Pharma/control-grid-agenda-based bill with all terms vague, undefined and open to interpretation, AND without actual any content on health improvement.
VOTE THIS BILL DOWN!
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse