The House of Commons ethics committee wants the federal government to inform Canadians if they’re being spied on and to give them the option to opt out of data-collection surveillance programs.
The recommendations come as parliamentarians probe the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) secretly spying on the locations of millions of Canadians.
Last year it was revealed that the federal department obtained data from 33 million devices to conduct “population mobility patterns” research during lockdowns.
The project was only unveiled after PHAC put out a tender notice seeking contractors to continue the surveillance program until May 31, 2023.
Committee members have called for the government to notify people included in future sweeps “in a manner that clearly outlines the nature and purpose of the data collection.”
Additionally, parliamentarians said they would like to see upgraded privacy laws to protect de-identified and aggregate information.
In February, the House of Commons narrowly voted to temporarily halt the PHAC surveillance despite opposition from Liberal MPs.
“We are simply not at the point of understanding how this data was collected, whether it was properly de-identified, what the risks of re-identification are and why the Privacy Commissioner was not involved in the process,” said Conservative MP John Brassard.
The program is also currently being audited by the federal privacy commissioner.
Although PHAC officials maintain that personally identifiable information was stripped from the data, privacy experts have disputed the claim and have called the program a violation of Canadians’ rights.
Ontario’s former privacy commissioner and Executive Director of Global Privacy and Security by Design Ann Cavoukian told True North in December that Canadians should have “zero trust” in the federal government’s assurances regarding their conduct.
“They are collecting all of this mobile data,” she said. “33 million mobile devices and mobile devices are usually linked to personal identifiers, and you have to take some measures to remove them and de-identify the data in a strong way so it can’t be reidentified. We have no assurances to that effect whatsoever.”
True North founder and editor-in-chief Candice Malcolm will moderate the first debate of the Conservative Party of Canada Leadership race tonight at the annual Canada Strong and Free Network (formerly known as the Manning Centre) conference in Ottawa.
Jean Charest, Leslyn Lewis, Pierre Poilievre, Roman Baber and Scott Aitchison will be participating in the debate.
British Columbia’s government-run electricity provider is under fire for posting memes slamming the use of natural gas and gasoline-powered vehicles.
BC Hydro posted a number of Star Wars-themed memes to Twitter on Wednesday, presumably to mark May the 4th, which is commonly treated as a day of fandom for the space fantasy franchise.
One of these posts was a variation on the Anakin Skywalker and clueless Padme meme, which carried the hashtag #FarewellFossilFuels.
“‘Natural’ doesn’t mean clean,” BC Hydro wrote.
What kind of mickey mouse operation is the BC government running??! Why would a crown corporation criticize natural gas as an energy source that its own government approved?? Unbelievable!!! Did the energy minister approve this meme??!! https://t.co/M93RWV22j8
BC Liberal MLA and former leadership contender Ellis Ross slammed the photo, calling the crown corporation a “mickey mouse operation” and questioning the thinking behind the post.
“What kind of mickey mouse operation is the BC government running??! Why would a crown corporation criticize natural gas as an energy source that its own government approved?? Unbelievable!!! Did the energy minister approve this meme??!!” wrote Ross.
Ross, a former Chief Councillor for the Haisla nation who represents the riding of Skeena, is a vocal advocate for LNG projects, having run for office over frustration with the slow pace of project approvals.
Currently, the BC Oil & Gas Commission regulates several ongoing major natural gas projects with approval from the provincial government.
Among them are Coastal GasLink, Kitimat LNG, the Pacific Trails pipeline, the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission and Woodfibre LNG, among others.
Last month, BC Energy Minister Bruce Ralston touted the province as a “secure jurisdiction” for liquefied natural gas (LNG) developers to invest in.
“The fact that LNG Canada is eager to move forward is a strong indication that companies see B.C. as a secure jurisdiction to invest in,” Ralston said about news that Shell wants a major expansion for LNG Canada.
In 2020 Premier John Horgan also said that he wouldn’t cancel the Coastal GasLink pipeline despite opposition from climate activists.
“The fact that LNG Canada is eager to move forward is a strong indication that companies see B.C. as a secure jurisdiction to invest in,” said Horgan of the project.
According to a 2018 study by Canadians for Affordable Energy, over half of B.C. homes rely on natural gas to heat their homes, while the other half relies on “electricity, oil, propane, coal, wood or some combination for heat.”
Additionally, natural gas accounts for 4% of electricity production in the province behind geothermal and hydro electricity, which BC Hydro oversees.
The Trudeau government has approved a massive oil project in Eastern Canada, while at the same time, blocking energy projects in Western Canada. Meanwhile, Quebec has become the first jurisdiction in the world to end all oil and gas exploration – but of course, they’ll still benefit billions from Canada’s equalization program courtesy of the West.
On this episode of The Candice Malcolm Show, Candice is joined by seasoned entrepreneur Michael Binnion. Michael is the President and founding shareholder of Questerre Energy, a public oil and gas production company operating in Quebec. He is also the Executive Director of the Modern Miracle Network, whose mission is to encourage Canadians to have reasoned conversations about energy issues.
Candice and Michael discuss Quebec’s controversial decision to ban oil and gas, the Trudeau government’s anti-Western Canadian bias and what the oil and gas sector is doing to lower emissions and much more.
YouTube officials have warned that if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s internet regulation bill goes through, it could give the government unprecedented power over everyday content posted online.
According to YouTube Canada’s head of government affairs Janette Patell, Bill C-11’s wording is so broad that it places home videos within the purview of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
Despite claims by the Trudeau government that the law would exclude ordinary videos, several experts have blasted the update to the Broadcasting Act as an affront to freedom of expression.
“(Bill C-11) provides the CRTC the discretion to regulate user-generated content like a fan doing a cover song or someone making cooking videos in their kitchen or doing how-to-fix-a-bike videos,” said Patell.
Liberal Minister of Heritage Pablo Rodriguez told the media in February that such content would not be within the CRTC’s mandate.
“We have been extremely clear: Only platforms have obligations. Users and creators will not be regulated. Platforms are in, user-generated content is out,” said department spokeswoman Laura Scaffidi.
Last month, Trudeau-appointed CRTC chair Ian Scott claimed that Canadians should have confidence in the organization to regulate the internet.
“Users of online and social media services expect freedom of expression, and they will continue to enjoy this under the new Broadcasting Act,” Scott claimed.
“Put another way, the CRTC issues about 250 broadcasting decisions annually. Not a single one has ever been successfully challenged on the basis that it somehow infringed Canadians’ freedom of expression.”
The Trudeau government has introduced several pieces of legislation to expand government control of the online world, including so-called online hate bill, C-18.
Other social media companies that have criticized the Liberals’ regulatory plans include Twitter. A submission from Twitter to the heritage ministry that was obtained by an access to information request compared the Liberal’s online hate legislation to censorship regimes in authoritarian countries such as North Korea.
“The proposal by the government of Canada to allow the Digital Safety Commissioner to block websites is drastic,” wrote Twitter’s Manager for Public Policy Michele Austin in September.
“People around the world have been blocked from accessing Twitter and other services in a similar manner as the one proposed by Canada by multiple authoritarian governments (China, North Korea, and Iran, for example) under the false guise of ‘online safety’ impeding peoples’ rights to access information online.”
Former CRTC commissioner Timothy Denton also likened proposed internet regulations to authoritarian regimes.
“It is creepily totalitarian, something you might expect out of China or Russia,” said Denton in November.
A recent article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission” has garnered much medical and societal attention.
The article uses unproven and subjective mathematical models in an attempt to simulate one’s COVID-19 infection risk across various patterns of interactions with both vaccinated and vaccine-free individuals.
The author concludes that individuals who avoid vaccination contribute to negative health consequences for others. “The risk of infection [is] markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all [population interaction] assumptions.”
Such an assertion is incorrect and blatantly biased, as we will demonstrate.
This article is fraught with egregious misassumptions and glaring omissions. This deceptive study:
● Uses problematic mathematical modeling as a surrogate for real-world data
● Overestimates vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection
● Overestimates the risk of transmission (secondary attack rate)
● Underestimates the percentage of the unvaccinated population with effective and robust natural immunity
● Does not account for the waning immunity provided by vaccines
● Is published by a lead author whose conflicts of interest are multiple and significant as it pertains to COVID-19 vaccines.
First, inaccurate mathematical modeling (aka computer modeling) has been frequently used throughout the COVID-19 response in order to justify lockdown measures while promoting unscientific public health edicts. We have yet to observe any real accuracy or public health benefit to the multiple computer modeled declarations or the policies they generate to date.
Next, the authors have used the fictitious range of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection of 40-80%. This represents the upper bound limit of 80% as seen in some Delta variant data and a lower bound limit of 40%, the rate presumed months prior to any real-world early Omicron variant data.
These assumptions are not consistent with the current data available to the medical community. The vaccine effectiveness against Omicron symptomatic infection ranges from 0% to 75% which represents a range independently associated with one’s vaccine type, duration since primary series, and duration since booster(s).
Regarding transmission; the author overstates the ability of vaccines to reduce the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by a remarkable amount. The most current information available from the publication “United Kingdom COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report Week 16 (April 21st, 2022)” confirms a vaccine effectiveness of 0-25% in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission at all time periods since a booster dose. Current data supports the fact that COVID-19 vaccines do a poor job at reducing one’s risk of transmission of disease.
Thus, the authors’ models grossly overestimate vaccine effectiveness against both symptomatic infection and transmission. Moreover, the model proposed fails to account for the single-handedly most important reason for the ongoing and relentless Omicron waves, namely waning vaccine immunity.
Countless studies and real-world data demonstrate rapid waning immunity in the fully vaccinated population. Vaccines do not currently protect the vaccinated. Why can’t we all just admit this reality?
Furthermore, the authors assume a baseline previously infected rate of 20% in the unvaccinated population. Since the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 waves, it is now estimated that 50-80% of Canadians have been infected and thus have achieved natural immunity, with that number continuing to rise daily.
The longevity of protection from natural immunity against symptomatic infection has been repeatedly proven superior to vaccination alone, meaning that the underestimation of those with natural immunity further skews the model from being anything remotely resembling what we are witnessing in reality.
Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the level of academic rigour, integrity, and quality used to support mandates, restrictions, and Public Health guidance has drastically diminished. We are forced to adhere to observational data and models which would fail scrutiny in any first-year medical epidemiology course as the gold standards for determining efficacy and effectiveness.
Appallingly, this same evidence is being used to guide and dictate policies, which have caused irreversible damage to adolescents, families, careers, and our healthcare system. Randomized control trials are compromised and left unfinished leading to a discreet lack of data that should cause any clinician worth their degree cause for concern.
Finally, we must address the footnote provided in the study. Dr. Fisman admits that he accepts direct compensation from multiple COVID-19 vaccine agencies including Pfizer and AstraZeneca. When it comes to subjective societal models, how can we trust a researcher who has direct financial ties to the vaccine industry to be objective about a matter of utmost financial importance to the companies to which he pledges allegiance? Cui bono?
Evidence-based medicine has lost its aptitude amidst a time where academics like Dr. Fisman financially benefit by producing poor quality studies that the Media, the BC Provincial government and their enablers including the Provincial Heath Officer (PHO) deem as gospel.
The honourable John Horgan recently posed the question “[Do] you want a headline, or do you want action?”. True academics would like quality evidence from independent researchers who have no conflicts of interest.
Unfortunately, the true nature of our current reality leads us to a realm that includes unproven mathematical models, a misunderstanding about the importance of the variables at hand, an underrepresentation of the natural immunity we all share, and most importantly the intentional misleading of the public when it comes to public health matters nation-wide.
Promotion of poorly constructed research such as this can only lead to further stigmatization and division in our once tolerant society. We challenge the CMAJ to retract this “study” and similarly challenge all media outlets who carried this story to issue a correction in their next publication.
A former Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) teacher has filed a $1.7-million defamation suit against the board and its chairman Scott Piatkowski for making widespread claims she was “transphobic” and had engaged in “hate speech” in a January presentation to the board.
Carolyn Burjoski, a teacher of 20 years with the WRDSB, alleges in her claim to the Ontario Superior Court on May 4 that Piatkowski made false and defamatory statements to the media following the meeting. These include Piatkowski saying that her presentation was “disrespectful” to trans people and that it would cause them to “be attacked.”
On Jan. 17, Burjoski was just four minutes into her deputation objecting to the appropriateness of certain highly sexualized books in elementary school libraries – for kids from kindergarten to grade six – when Piatkowski abruptly stopped her.
Piatkowski contended that Burjoski’s presentation violated the Human Rights Code, and Burjoski was expelled from the meeting.
She was subsequently put on home assignment, ordered to keep quiet and subjected to an investigation in which she was told her retirement benefits could be cancelled, and a formal complaint could be made to the Ontario College of Teachers.
Burjoski was also informed that the WRDSB could pursue criminal charges against her, but an investigation did not proceed because of her health status. The claim contends Burjoski was rushed to hospital suffering a nervous breakdown on Jan. 22 following the “onslaught of negative attention and harm.”
She retired Jan. 31.
Burjoski alleges that the WRDSB chair contended he had to stop her presentation so as not to “allow hate into their board meeting.”
She also claims Piatkowski defamed her when he tweeted that Burjoski’s presentation was a “bat signal” to “every transphobe” on Twitter.
Her filing alleges that the various false statements – which were disseminated in media reports, on social media and other online forums as well as to WDRSB staff – were “highly damaging” to the long-time teacher’s reputation.
“In publishing these false and defamatory statements, Piatkowski and WRDSB ought to have known that such statements would ferment hatred, ridicule and contempt for Burjoski,” the claim states.
She alleges that Piatkowski’s conduct was “egregious, high-handed, capricious and oppressive.”
The court filing also notes that the WRDSB had refused to post the livestream recording of the Jan. 17 meeting – as required by the Education Act – so that the public could actually hear for themselves what was stated at the meeting and judge the appropriateness of the presentation.
They pulled that video trying to claim copyright of a public meeting.
It's so funny watching the lengths they will go to stop the public from knowing what's going on.
The claim states that Burjoski sent a Feb. 16 letter to the board chairman seeking a retraction and apology. Neither has been forthcoming.
A copy of the meeting was never posted and other copies were removed from YouTube.
But I watched the proceedings that night and observed that Piatkowski – backed up by other woke trustees – greatly abused his power.
He subsequently cancelled all criticism of his move on his Twitter feed and blocked his critics.
While Burjoski was forced to silently cool her heels on home assignment, Piatkowski did a series of media interviews and sent a letter to board employees in which he continued to refer to her presentation as “transphobic” and hateful.
Efforts to reach Piatkowski were unsuccessful Wednesday.
Burjoski posted a GoFundMe page Wednesday with a YouTube video to accompany her lawsuit. She indicated she needs $100,000 to support her fight against the WRDSB.
“I believe school boards are using language and HR legislation as weapons to silence anyone who questions their policies,” she says in the video.
“The message to all teachers is clear: If you speak up, you will be punished.”
Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre and his wife Ana answered some tough questions on the campaign trail this week about pharmaceutical companies and globalist organizations.
Flanked by Ana at a campaign stop in Ontario, Pierre promised that his government would boycott the World Economic Forum (WEF) after being approached by a handful of people asking him about any possible connections to the organization.
Pierre used the opportunity to deny affiliation with the group while taking a shot at People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier.
“I’m against the World Economic Forum,” Pierre said. “Unlike Maxime Bernier, I’ve never been to the Davos conference that the World Economic Forum puts on, and he’ll have to explain why he went there and what he was doing there.”
“But I did not go to that, and I would not, nor will any of my ministers.”
“Have you spoken to Justin Trudeau about the amount of money he’s making on these vaccines that he’s forcing on us?” one woman asked. “I’m not accusing you, but I have heard that you have shares in that company.”
Ana asked if she could answer and took the woman by the hand.
“Can I look you in the eyes when I say that – can I hold you by the hand and say that – I do not, darling, I really do not, and I am honest, and I am promising you.”
Pierre’s assertion was disputed by an onlooker who mentioned that WEF’s website contained a photo and webpage of him.
Ana shot back, saying, “(h)is name was on the website, and we do not know why. We asked them why they put (his) name there. The only answer we got is that they published an article that he has published, but he has no affiliation.”
Pierre has also denied any relationship with WEF in an interview with True North’s Andrew Lawton in March.
“I’ve never been to Davos,” Pierre said. “I’ve never been part of the organization, and I don’t agree with its publicly stated policy objectives.”
WEF is a non-profit organization that seeks to revolutionize the global economy by pursuing globalization through initiatives like the “Great Reset.” They have infamously declared that, in the future, “we will own nothing and be happy.”
WEF’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland has hosted some of the world’s most influential people, including Nelson Mandela, George Soros, Bill Gates, Prince Charles and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Pierre was also asked about a possible affiliation with Microsoft founder Bill Gates, including a picture Pierre had taken with him.
“He came to Parliament Hill in 2014 or ‘15, and I shook his hand, and I had a picture with him,” Pierre explained.
The CPC leadership frontrunner was also asked for his feelings about pharmaceutical companies being immune from civil liability.
“I believe that every single company in Canada should be subject to the same liability in the court of law if anything they do causes harm to people – undue harm to people,” Pierre answered.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s a construction company whose bridge collapses or if it’s a pharmaceutical company whose medication doesn’t work the way it was promised. So I think every company should have liability in a court of law, and judges should rule on those things.”
While the Trudeau government attempts to use Roe V Wade to virtue signal and achieve cheap political points in Canada, a real conversation about family policy is desperately needed. Canada’s birth rate is declining at a concerning rate because fewer families are having kids.
Ginny Roth, the Vice President at Crestview Strategy, believes this is an opportunity for Conservatives to step up. Ginny argues that the Liberal approach has failed and that “a conservative feminism should drop labour-force participation as the only measure of gender equality.”
On this episode of The Candice Malcolm Show, Candice and Ginny discuss the Trudeau government’s $10/day child care agreement, how the Liberals are portraying the program as “women’s liberation” and what a Conservative family policy might look like.
The B.C. government has proudly introduced “the first ever race-based data legislation in the country,” saying it intends to collect information on the races of all its citizens to fight systemic racism and better deliver government programs.
NDP premier John Horgan announced the province’s Anti-Racism Data Act earlier this week alongside Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives Rachna Singh and other officials.
“Our province is shaped by diversity with people from all over the world choosing to come to B.C. to build a better life,” said Horgan. “But for too long, systemic racism and the long-lasting effects of colonialism have unfairly held people back when it comes to education, job opportunities, housing and more.”
The B.C. government has proudly introduced “the first ever race-based data legislation in the country,” saying it intends to collect information on the races of all its citizens to fight systemic racism and better deliver government programs. #bcpoli#cdnpolipic.twitter.com/HCHvCtPauW
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Horgan emphasized the honour of introducing the identity-based legislation, describing himself as the son of an Irish immigrant and a man raised by women.
“It is with a significant amount of pride that I know Minister (David) Eby will stand in a few short minutes, and be recognized by the first ever South Asian speaker in the legislature of British Columbia to introduce that legislation,” he said to applause.
“And when he does so, he will be surrounded by the largest collection of non-Caucasian members that have ever sat in the B.C. legislature.”
The government claimed that more than 13,000 British Columbians had provided input towards the law, saying that more than 90% of the responses from visible minorities expressed a belief that collecting data on people’s race, faith, ability and gender identity could bring positive change to B.C..
“This is just the first step on the road to building the anti-racist British Columbia we all want to see,” Horgan said.
The law comes on the heels of an inquiry by the B.C. Human Rights Commission into incidents of hate during the pandemic. As previously reported by True North, the Commission makes no mention of issues surrounding vaccination status or masking in its definition of hate incidents.
“Through the pandemic, we saw disproportionate impacts on racialized communities but felt powerless to advocate for our patients,” said Birinder Narang, a family physician and member of the legislation’s steering committee.
“The anti-racism data legislation will help to remove barriers, reduce systemic racism and increase equitable access to health-care services going forward for all in an evidence-informed manner.”
When questioned about issues of privacy and potential abuses of the collected data, the province said that there would be “safeguards” to protect the information and prevent it from being used for harm.
The government also insisted that ministries would be required to follow careful guidelines before sharing any statistical data publicly – but also to release statistics annually to support and advance racial equity.
When asked about how the success of the data’s uses might be measured, SFU associate professor June Francis admitted that there was no progress without milestones.
“But I do want to say a few things about data,” she added. “We have a tendency to use the colonial understanding of data.”
“Data is not just about numbers. Data is about knowing – Indigenous ways of knowing. Racialized communities have different approaches through storytelling through many of the metrics that would help us to figure out if we’re getting there.”
Earlier in the press conference, Francis — who identified herself as Jamaican — welcomed the government’s legislation in terms of a reclamation of B.C. by non-European peoples.
“I got to look at those pictures — you know, the ones on the walls of the legislature?” she said. “We expecting those colours to change.”
During a 2020 election debate, Horgan came under fire for answering a question about systemic racism by saying, “(while growing up) I did not see colour; I felt that everyone around me was the same.”
“And I’ve brought that through my entire adult life, and I’ve instilled that in my children.”
Horgan recanted the statement immediately afterwards, however, facing pressure to admit “colourblindness” as a form of unconscious racism.
This is the answer I wish I gave on stage. Saying "I don’t see colour" causes pain and makes people feel unseen. I’m sorry. I’ll never fully understand, as a white person, the lived reality of systemic racism. I’m listening, learning, and I’ll keep working every day to do better. pic.twitter.com/Rbr7h0JOyh
While B.C. is the first province in Canada to introduce legislation to collect race-based data, other provinces have introduced comparable anti-racism laws.
In Ontario, Bill C-67 seeks to amend various provincial acts with respect to “racial equity,” including Ontario’s Education Act, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and the Ontario College of Teachers Act.
The bill would, among other measures, mandate “anti-racism and racial equity training” for teachers, as well as “fines for persons who disrupt or attempt to disrupt proceedings of a school or class through the use of racist language or activities.”
The bill had passed second reading and was under committee review as of the start of the 2022 Ontario provincial election campaign on Wednesday.
