Justin Trudeau, your dad pushed for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I Was there, and participated in its formulation
Here is one of the provisions of that Charter:
6(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
In August 1980, I affixed my name as Premier and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister to a Document entitled “Towards The Twenty First Century Together, The Position of the Government of Newfoundland Regarding Constitutional Change.”
In this document I said:
“The entrenchment of democratic rights and fundamental freedoms is a means of giving explicit constitutional recognition to values which have served Canada well. Newfoundland, therefore, supports a Charter of Rights which will entrench the democratic rights and fundamental freedoms of Canadians.”
But I went on to say:
“While explicit constitutional reference will have a significant normative value, the ultimate guarantee of liberty rests with the vigilance of the citizen, the accountability of government, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.’
That’s where we are today, Mr. Trudeau, having to activate “the vigilance of the citizen” given the comments you are making about vaccine passports and the lack of Canadian leadership to oppose this measure.
Public Health reasons won’t justify this violation of our rights given the following:
The lack of simple preventive measures in Canada. They were and are absent in fighting this pandemic —from vitamin D and C and Zinc promotion, to other early prevention and early treatment measures that are being used all over the world like Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Doxycycline, and Azithromycin.
The vaccines themselves are experimental and represent the biggest drug trial in history.
Changing the interval time between the first and second doses (Pfizer and Moderna) violates the established Pharmaceutical protocol. Doing this, likely comprises the efficacy of the vaccines.
The scientifically demonstrated flaws in the process of PCR testing.
The now demonstrated deaths and health problems linked to COVID vaccine use. Thousands (4,128) of adverse events, hundreds (617) of serious events have been recorded up to April 23, 2021.
The demonstrated failure of lockdowns to combat the pandemic. The lockdowns’ negative effects outweigh any positive effects both economically, medically, and socially. Note the Great Barrington Declaration.
The lack of answers to questions posed by a group of Ontario scientists concerning the Ontario response to the pandemic. These questions apply country wide.
The inconsistent, ambiguous manner in which deaths are recorded – dying with Covid or from Covid, for example.
Many experts question how Governments are recording adverse events after vaccine usage.
There are no medium- to long-term effects known on using the vaccines. Your own Advisory Committee on Immunizations reported two days ago that “There is currently no available evidence on medium- and long-term efficacy of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines, however, trials are ongoing and this statement will be updated as evidence emerges.”
Prime Minister. You should change course now on this matter.
Otherwise much time and money will be spent on legal processes which I believe will ultimately end in the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens being restored.
Oh, Oh, remember when it was all about the science – from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia to Nunavut?
Follow the science! What has happened to that now? Too Trudeau and Dr. Tam, all vaccines are safe.
Science says vaccines are safe but some conditions for some vaccines. Big difference!
Here we have a group of scientists doing a 120-page report advising the government. People should remember who these people are and their mandate :
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) is an External Advisory Body that provides the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) with independent, ongoing and timely medical, scientific, and public health advice in response to questions from PHAC relating to immunization.
In addition to burden of disease and vaccine characteristics, PHAC has expanded the mandate of NACI to include the systematic consideration of programmatic factors in developing evidence-based recommendations to facilitate timely decision making for publicly-funded vaccine programs at provincial and territorial levels.
The additional factors to be systematically considered by NACI include: economics, ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability. Not all NACI Statements will require in-depth analyses of all programmatic factors. While systematic consideration of programmatic factors will be conducted using evidence-informed tools to identify distinct issues that could impact decision-making for recommendation development, only distinct issues identified as being specific to the vaccine or vaccine-preventable disease will be included.
This statement contains NACI’s independent advice and recommendations, which are based upon the best current available scientific knowledge. This document is being disseminated for information purposes. People administering the vaccine should also be aware of the contents of the relevant product monograph. Recommendations for use and other information set out herein may differ from that set out in the product monographs of the Canadian manufacturers of the vaccines. Manufacturer(s) have sought approval of the vaccines and provided evidence as to its safety and efficacy only when it is used in accordance with the product monographs. NACI members and liaison members conduct themselves within the context of PHAC’s Policy on Conflict of Interest, including yearly declaration of potential conflict of interest.”
This is not some two-bit operation but serious scientists doing research and study and this, just one of their reports, is 120 pages of scientific data and analysis.
Where is Trudeau’s 120-page scientific report? This is the advisory committee to his own government agency, The Public Health Agency.
That’s it! Yet he ignores it.
Here are the Committee’s exact words
“NACI recommends that a complete series with a viral vector COVID-19 vaccine may be offered to individuals 30 years of age and older without contraindications, only if the individual prefers an earlier vaccine rather than wait for an mRNA vaccine AND all of the following conditions apply:
a) The benefit-risk analysis* determines that the benefit of earlier vaccination with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccine outweighs the risk of COVID-19 while waiting for an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; AND
b) The benefits, relative risk* and consequences of VITT and COVID-19 for the individual are clearly outlined, factoring in the anticipated waiting time to receive an mRNA vaccine as well as other effective personal public health measures to mitigate risk of COVID-19, and the individual makes an informed decision based on an understanding about these risks and benefits; AND
c) There will be substantial delay to receive an mRNA vaccine.
Note: Provinces and territories should adapt the age limit based on their local epidemiology.”
So no AZ or Johnson and Johnson vaccine for people below age 30. That’s what the scientists are saying.
The Prime Minister and Dr. Tam should have acknowledged and incorporated the Committee’s recommendations into an amended government statement.
Because all the vaccines are emergency approvals with no medium- and long-term clinical trials, everyone is learning – on the fly. Hence, this Committee Statement.
Oh, No, the narrative must remain – for Trudeau – all are safe. Follow the science?
Risky times, I say.
Dr. Hoffe of Lytton, BC has at least eight patients who have contracted some sort of neurological condition after all of them had taken the Moderna vaccine. Dr. Hoffe has asked for these patients to be examined by a specialist, but to this date no one has seen these patients. All Governments in Canada have invoked emergency legislation. One would think this situation fits under such an emergency especially since it concerns the pandemic, the very thing for which the emergencies have been invoked.
Of course, there is the Canada Health Act which says in Section 3
“3 It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.”
Then there is the matter of the Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 7:
“7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
I never thought I would see the day where a qualified family doctor requests that his sick patients be seen by a specialist and that to be denied, and in this case in the middle of a Pandemic where one of the remedies for the pandemic, a vaccine is under suspicion for possibly causing the patients’ illness.
Who would have thought that a Canadian Government would act this way?
B. A group of Ontario medical experts wrote the Ontario Government about its response to the pandemic asking for an open debate on at least seven questions:
What are the actual dangers of SARS-CoV-2 by age group and steps taken to protect those in long-term care and the most vulnerable, age 60 and older with co-morbidities?
What is the rationale for the current vaccine roll-out and alteration to the manufacturers’ recommended vaccination protocols?
What controls are in place to limit the number of cycles used in performing PCR tests to 30 cycles to avoid undue false positives inflating the cases reported?
Identification and review of supporting science and corresponding data that led the province to their conclusions that the approach in use was, and is, appropriate, and not worth revision as the crisis evolved over the past 12+ months.
How effective are stringent population-wide restrictions (lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, and stay at home orders) at controlling the pandemic and are they the best response given the collateral damage?
Why have early multidrug treatment measures, proven to be highly effective and including but not limited to ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, doxycycline, azithromycin and other compounds used routinely in other countries, not being employed to save lives in Ontario, an action that would virtually eliminate the perceived need for lockdowns, school closures, masking among other things.
What are the priorities in the management of the pandemic and how can we shift the response from fear to confidence?
No answer to that April 19 letter has been forthcoming.
Who would have thought that serious concerns by experts in the operation of a response to a pandemic would be ignored by a Canadian Government?
C. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is defending a Pastor from Alberta Government measures that it says violates the Constitution. The Court has ruled that the case will be heard for four days beginning May 3 However, the Alberta Government does not have to prove then the constitutionality of its actions.
Note the Centre’s comments
‘The trial will proceed for up to four days initially, but will then be adjourned because government lawyers are not yet prepared to present any medical or scientific evidence that might support the health orders under which Pastor Coates is charged. Pastor Coates’ Charter challenge to the constitutionality and legality of Dr. Deena Hinshaw’s lockdown restrictions will be heard by the Court at an unknown later date.’
Can you believe this??
The Centre’s says:
“By May 3, the government will have had almost fourteen months to assemble proper medical and scientific evidence to justify lockdowns and the resulting violations of our fundamental Charter freedoms. Yet the government cannot or will not put that evidence before the courts. But, somehow, the Alberta government would have us believe that it has enough medical and scientific evidence to shut down hundreds of small businesses, pushing many of them into bankruptcy, and to cancel over 20,000 medically necessary surgeries, and to force Albertans into a third lockdown as of yesterday, with its resulting harms of unemployment, poverty and despair,”
Who would have thought that a Canadian Government would act this way, withholding scientific information that they already possess and that a Court would agree to this Government action?
These things are facts, happening right now in a so-called democratic Canada.