Here is the principle reason for why the Carney regime is pushing forward with Bill C-9.
From the people who gave you vaccine mandates and isolation hotels, more of the same
westernstandard.news
If you didn't like the fact that during COVID you couldn't travel, go to a restaurant, a gym or church without a 'safe-and-effective' vaccine — and might find yourself confined to a post-trip isolation hotel, anyway — you probably blamed Ottawa. As you should. What you might not have considered is that the idea for all those assaults on your basic freedoms came originally from the World Health Organization. It was their idea.
On September 19, with barely a whisper in Parliament and no public debate, Canada surrendered another crucial piece of its discretion to act in its own interests, in the event of a COVID-like event in the future. Amendments to the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations (IHR,) negotiated over the past two years, are now binding on Canadians — and that's how Ottawa wants it.
In practice, that means in the event of another pandemic or health emergency, it will not be Canadian governments or provincial public health officers calling the shots. It will be the WHO, setting the timeline, prescribing the measures, and demanding that Canada fall in line — immediately.
If that sounds to you like a massive transfer of power away from our democratic institutions, constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic says you’re not overreacting. She joins me tonight on Hannaford to explain what these amendments mean, why they matter, and how they could upend both our federal system and our basic rights.
What emerges from Ms. Pejovic’s analysis is stark: Canada has tied its own hands in the next health crisis. The WHO will dictate the timeline. Ottawa will impose one-size-fits-all rules. Dissent may be censored as “misinformation.” And individual rights, provincial autonomy, and even medical fairness could all be sacrificed in the name of rapid compliance.
As Ms. Pejovic points out, much of what Canadians endured during COVID-19 — lockdowns, quarantines, travel restrictions, and proof-of-vaccination requirements — can be traced directly back to the WHO’s 2005 regulations, the ones that is, that have just been made more rigorous.
For example, this was the document that specifically recommended (Article 18) measures such as mandatory proof of vaccination, enforced isolation of “suspected” cases, and quarantine hotels for returning travellers.
Now the amendments go even further. They demand countries act “as rapidly as possible” when the WHO declares an emergency. In other words, Ottawa must shut things down immediately, with little time for scientific debate, parliamentary scrutiny, or provincial variation.
“The WHO wants to steamroll the process,” Pejovic warns. “That means less space for dissenting views, less science-driven discussion, and less democratic accountability.”
One of the most troubling changes, Pejovic explains, is the demand for a unified “national response.” In Canada’s federal system, provinces have long had the power to tailor their own public health rules. That’s why during COVID, BC closed the churches but kept the restaurants open, while in Alberta the government allowed the churches to meet, but closed the restaurants. Same virus.
The new WHO rules require provinces to hand authority to Ottawa. Some might say, 'good idea.'
But, that would leave future premiers with no room to chart their own course, even if the science or local conditions justified it.
“It centralizes immense power in the federal government,” says Ms. Pejovic. “And we’ve already seen how Ottawa abused that power during COVID.”
Ms. Pejovic also points to the glaring inconsistencies that characterized Canada’s pandemic response. In Manitoba, for example, churches were shuttered while NHL teams practiced freely and film crews continued shooting movies. Families couldn’t gather for Christmas dinner, but professional actors could stage close-contact scenes of intimacy.
Such double standards, she argues, undermined trust. “When the public sees NHL players colliding on the ice but can’t sit distanced in a church pew, they stop believing the rules are really about safety.”
Ms. Pejovic doesn’t shy away from the hard questions about vaccines, either. She notes growing evidence of adverse effects such as myocarditis in young men, arguing the risks in some cases outweighed the dangers of COVID itself.
But what troubles her even more is how dissenting voices were silenced. The new IHR amendments explicitly require countries to combat “misinformation and disinformation.” For Ms. Pejovic, that’s code for censorship.
“We saw it during COVID — Trudeau calling dissenters racists and misogynists, Big Tech platforms scrubbing doctors and scientists who asked questions. Now it’s written into binding regulations.”
Another clause in the amendments requires that medicines and vaccines be distributed “equitably” rather than equally. That may sound harmless, but Pejovic warns it could open the door to discrimination.
“Equality means everyone is treated the same,” she says. “Equity means some groups are prioritized over others for political reasons. Do we really want lifesaving treatments rationed that way?”
The United States refused to sign on to the revised IHR, citing these concerns. Canada, however, went along without hesitation.
This is not fearmongering. It is the reality of what Canada signed. And unless Canadians start paying attention, the next pandemic will not only test our resilience — it may reveal just how little control we actually have left. After all, if sovereignty, freedom, and accountability don’t matter in public health, they won’t matter anywhere else. Will they? |
