As of November 27th, 2023, three countries (at least) sent letters to the WHO, wanting out; and here are three things (at least) that can be done to get Canada out – at some point in the future.
As James Roguski's Substack stated on Monday:
‘Less Than One Week To Go’ . . . for heads of state around the world to exhibit the courage needed to send a simple letter to the WHO to REJECT the amendments that were adopted on May 27, 2022.’
From a discussion with the Alberta Prosperity Project “Out with the WHO, in with the New” :
"When they structured the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand governments, your executive branch of government can get involved in any international agreement they want [and] parliament is impotent. The reason they're not doing anything is they can't do anything."
What is the situation here in Canada then?
The UK parliament's option are different, but not that different, it turns out. Apparently, there are three channels that may be very useful here, as we move forward into this new world, in which the time allowed to rejected future WHO (IHR) amendments has been drastically shortened.
There has been some good news though from, New Zealand, Estonia and Slovakia (‘Who told the WHO to shove it where the sun doesn't shine’)
There will likely be more rejections as the end of the month approaches (and I'm sure some of you will be hunting for these reports as well), but the main reason for this post is to share what I found with respect to Canada's situation.
Example above: The International Bovine Meat Agreement of 1994. So when we are told that Canadians will not be allowed to eat beef in the future, and we see that parliament is ‘impotent’ (and unable to stop agreements of any kind), we must be working to change this now.
I was compelled therefore (yet again) to share this information with Conservative MPs; because we will have demands when they are in power, for legislation to protect the people and return power over treaties and agreements (negotiated by the Executive Branch) to the House of Commons (and all Canadians).
I have lamented the end of 'representational democracy' in my recent letters, but the important thing moving forward is that we embrace 'participatory democracy' (with the people's full engagement). More on this later of course, but for now, here is my latest note to Federal MPs (sent Monday, Nov 27th) on three things that can be done here in Canada: Plans B, C and D. Plan E may be ‘E’ for emigrate. . . or just move to Alberta, where they will still have (all being well) heating oil, cattle and sovereignty.
Thank you again for your interest, and for subscribing to this Substack.
David
November 27th letter to Conservative MPs:
Dear __________
I wrote last Thursday, but realized that my address might not have been included on the note I sent to you. I'm sending this follow up, therefore, with my contact info too (as the auto responses suggested).
As you will see, I don't actually reside in your constituency, but please have pity (on a fellow Conservative) as a Liberal presides over the area in which I live, and I am effectively without representation. Writing to my MP, as suggested, will be futile (I know this from experience). More importantly though, this is a subject of concern to the country as a whole.
I do hope you will refer back to my November 23rd note on the 'Pandemic Treaty and IHR regulations deadline.' What I outlined in my original letter is underscored in the two video explanations below, that I received the following day (Nov 24th).
With the deadline to reject the IHR amendments (those of May 27th 2022) approaching in less than a week, it is almost certain Canada will default into accepting these latest changes.
We know, of course, that Prime Minister Trudeau will do nothing.
What is more important still: we all (everyday people and elected representatives) must understand that an avalanche of changes are about to follow; and with the proposed shortening of the approval period, it will be that much more difficult to make our voices heard in the future. The way this process is structured, 'representative democracy' already appears to be a thing of the past.
You can see a short (7min) synopsis at: 'International Health Regulations – Silence = Consent'
Then, in 'Is it too late to stop the WHO? w/James Roguski' From the 30 minutes mark:
“The head of state could just write a letter within 18 months and reject [the IHR amendments], but don't ask the people, don't say anything to parliament. . .”
That 18 month period, of course, comes to an end later this week. My first letter to MPs was sent Apr 20th, 2022, and over time, I've received fewer response, which is disheartening. Apparently, almost no one is paying attention. The people, and their elected representatives, are all in the same boat however, and most remain largely 'in the dark.' Those of us really on the outside though, are curious as to what all of you, being somewhat closer to the unfolding process, might understand about what is going on?
Upon reviewing ‘INTERNATIONAL TREATIES: CANADIAN PRACTICE’ (PRB 00-04E) C. ‘Making and Signing a Treaty’
When the serious changes come, it looks as we will have one last chance to redeem the democratic process, and preserve this nation's autonomy:
‘Where amendments must be made to Canadian legislation in order for a treaty to be implemented, the ministers concerned give instructions for an implementation bill to be drafted. After receiving Cabinet approval, the bill is tabled in Parliament and goes through the parliamentary legislative process.’ (My emphasis)
Allowing things to come down to the wire like this (as we have no control over what amendments will come our way in the future) represents an unacceptable risk.
However, by the time more amendments are sent our way (with the implementation of the next round of secretly negotiated changes), the Liberals are not likely to be in power, so we are calling on all of you (before the next election) to reassure Canadians that Canada's next Government will be listening to the people.
Returning to my point (in the email I sent last week): it is almost certain that what is happening now is not legal (for many reasons), and here I will refer you to three 'departures' from procedure in the British Parliament (in the hope that you might catch similar 'inconsistencies' here at home, and be moved to stop this process before it goes any further):
Petition 614335 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/614335 'Do not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless it is approved via public referendum', signed by over 156,000 people, was completely ignored with the statement (reissued from 27 May 2022):
"To protect lives, the economy and future generations from future pandemics, the UK government supports a new legally-binding instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. . ."
A second petition ('Exit the WHO' this time) was based on the fact that our voices were not being heard (and this was the reason for my original letters to Canada's Conservative and NDP representatives). On this occasion, an official Parliamentary petition (that had been accepted and was gathering signatures rapidly) was shut down before it even closed, with the statement: ‘The Government will not end the UK’s WHO membership.’ That some entity can interfere with the established democratic process of petitions, and once again silence the voice of the people, is something all of you will be concerned about too. A legitimate Government would honour this process, and listen to the people.
The UK Parliament (since 2010) required that all treaties be laid before parliament, for Parliament's consideration, for 21 days before it can be ratified (this hasn't happened): https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05855/
This 2010 Act also for the first time gave parliamentary disapproval of treaties statutory effect, and effectively gave the House of Commons a new power to block ratification. The process is as follows:
'The Government may not ratify the treaty for 21 ‘sitting days’ (ie days when both Houses were sitting) after it was laid before Parliament. . .'
If you refer to my earlier email, you will see my reference to 'framework agreements' and the point above may, at one time, have fallen into this category. That is, once a framework agreement has been entered into, we have already accepted that all further changes can be made without due process. But in England, Parliament now has new powers to 'block ratification' (if Parliament is doing its job) and it seems something similar exists in Canada. Returning to the 'INTERNATIONAL TREATIES: CANADIAN PRACTICE' document:
'Question periods and the various other times when parliamentarians can question the government are all opportunities for them to gather information on the status of negotiations being conducted by the Canadian government for the conclusion of international treaties.'
'[T]he ministers concerned give instructions for an implementation bill to be drafted.'
Have Canadian MPs and Ministers been doing their job?
I sent the following note on July 2nd 2023, to a 'minister concerned': Minister of Foreign Affairs (melanie.joly@international.gc.ca), regarding the ‘ “Bureau’s Text” and the WHO Member States (conceptual) ‘Zero Draft of the legally binding pandemic accord.’’ This email, in large part, was about the proposed amendments from India, that remove from the working text, the words: ‘respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom.’ These are the kinds of changes being discussed in secret.
I had the following Auto Response, during the 'Stakeholder Listening Session 2' :
Automatic reply: INB on July 7, 2023:
'Please note that we are currently receiving a high volume of emails. This may mean a delay in our responding to you.'
I never received a further response from Minister Joly, or her office. Apparently ‘respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom’ are not issues of concern to Liberals. Ministers of Health, of course, have changed; just as the Foreign Secretary has changed in the UK.
'David Cameron returns to UK government as foreign secretary change has occurred in the UK'
Which makes communications of this level even more difficult, for someone on the outside. So I return to the first point above, and ask that one of you (to start the ball rolling) bring this subject up in question period.
Canada almost had a requirement for government to table treaties in Parliament (at least 21 days prior to ratification) as in the UK, but the Liberal administration failed to pass Bill C-214 in 1999: 'An Act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded.' This extra layer of legislative protection is something that must exist.
Even then, we see the current Governments (of the UK and Canada) ignoring, or actively dismissing, the people (which is why I stopped writing to Liberal MPs and Liberal Ministers), and they could continue to ignore us in the future; so reviews of Foreign Policy, any and all treaties, must occur regularly and automatically.
With respect to negative legislation that might be introduced in the future (required by countries to facilitate any 'legally-binding' directives from the WHO) we must remember:
'The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada; all other laws must be consistent with the rules set out in it. If they are not, they may not be valid. Since the Charter is part of the Constitution, it is the most important law we have in Canada.'
Just as mandates and policies (that Prime Minister Trudeau and others now claim they never made) must be consistent with existing legislation; legislation should conform to the Supreme law of the land, even in an arbitrarily declared emergency (declared by the WHO for instance), rights and freedoms cannot be suspended – as follows:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/
The Criminal Code RSC 1985, c C-46 269.1
No defence
(3) It is no defence to a charge under this section that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject-matter of the charge or that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency. (my emphasis)
With all that is at stake for this country, we need to avoid ever getting near this stage.
I would suggest we have no alternative, therefore, not only to discuss these issues in public, reintroduce and pass the 1999 version of Bill C-214 (in case another unresponsive administration rises to power in Canada), but to reject these latest amendments, and Exit the WHO, as soon as possible.
Everyday people do not understand what has been happening here, and at this point, we cannot be certain that anyone in elected office is actually listening.
I have faith though (as all of those who will vote Conservative in the next General Election have faith) that Conservative representatives will respond to this issue.
I look forward, therefore, to your rely.
Sincerely,
David Ward
(Address and phone)