Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

The repair job at Immigration

Published

1 year ago

17 minute read

PAUL WELLS

The department’s top bureaucrat answers a critical report, with rare candour

Seven months ago Neil Yeates, a retired former deputy minister of immigration, submitted a report on the organization of the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to the current deputy minister, Christiane Fox.

Yeates’s 28-page report was blunt, plainspoken, critical but constructive. It said “the current organizational model at IRCC is broken.” At a time of global upheaval and dizzying growth in immigration levels, the department that decides who gets into Canada was no longer “fit for purpose,” he wrote. It was time for “major change.” When? “[T]he advice is to proceed now.”

On Thursday, a copy of Yeates’s report landed in my email inbox.

On Thursday night, Christiane Fox told me she is implementing many of Yeates’s recommendations, and described for me her plans for the department with a level of detail and candour I almost never see in today’s Ottawa.

I’m keeping the paywall off this story because I want it to be widely read. But producing work like this is my full-time job, and I’m able to get stories like this because people understand I’m writing for one of the best audiences in Canadian journalism. If you want to support my full-time work and join that audience, consider subscribing or upgrading to a paid subscription.

Copies of Yeates’s February IRCC Organizational Review Report have been floating around Ottawa because the department began implementing big changes this week. Some of the nearly 13,000 people who work in the department have asked for the rationale behind the changes. Yeates’s 28-page report makes the case succinctly.

Yeates was a top civil servant in Saskatchewan before moving to Ottawa in 2004. He held senior positions in three other departments before becoming deputy minister at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the department now known as IRCC, where he served from 2009 to his retirement in 2013. That means he was Jason Kenney’s deputy minister for all of Kenney’s time at Immigration, but he was also a Trudeau Foundation mentor if you want to get excited about that instead.

His report’s purpose, he wrote, “is to provide strategic advice to the Deputy Minister on how the department can become a more efficient and effective organization.” After interviewing 36 people inside and outside the department, he decided it was a mess.

‘“[T]he current organizational model at IRCC is broken but is being held together by the hard work and dedication of staff,” he wrote. “At IRCC today department-wide planning is limited and some interviewees suggested it has in fact disappeared completely . There is no multi-year strategic plan, annual plans are not in place consistently across the department and consequently reporting is seen by many as haphazard.”

What the department did have going for it was a decent work environment: “In talking to senior managers at IRCC the culture was universally seen as ‘committed,’ ‘collaborative,’ ‘supportive’ and so on.” The senior managers Yeates interviewed saw this culture as “helping to overcome the shortcomings of the current organizational structure and of the weakness of the governance and management systems.”

The immigration department has always been the main portal between a messy world and an anxious nation. Lately the world had grown messier, Yeates noted, and the demands on the department were starting to hurt. “[T]he operating environment, both nationally and internationally, has grown ever more complex, unstable and frenetic,” he wrote.

In response, “the department has grown exponentially,” from 5,217 staff when Yeates left it in 2013 to12,721 this year, an expansion of 144%. The “Ex complement,” the department’s management cadre, grew from 135 to 227 over the same period, a smaller increase of 68%. That might explain why the department’s managers are so stressed, Yeates speculated. At any rate, the department’s structure was conceived for a much smaller staff and caseload.

To catch up, Yeates proposed big reform in four areas: Organizational Structure, Governance, Management Systems and Culture. He cautioned that tinkering with only one or a couple of those areas wouldn’t have the effect that a “Big Bang,” however difficult, would achieve.

The big problem in Organizational Structure was that the department isn’t organized along business lines: that one of the world’s leading destinations for asylum and humanitarian immigration doesn’t have an assistant deputy minister for asylum, for instance. The obvious challenge was that in a hectic world there will certainly be more crises, like those of recent years. “Should IRCC have a permanent ‘response team’ in place? The short answer is no.” Between crises that team of experienced trouble-shooters would just be twirling their thumbs. Instead Yeates proposed better contingency planning, including lessons learned from other crisis-management departments such as National Defence.

Under Governance, Yeates found a proliferation of over-large committees sitting through endless presentations and not really sure, at the end of each, whether they had decided anything. “Most of the actual decision-making occurs in DMO/ADM bilats,” he wrote, referring to meetings between the Deputy Minister’s office and a given Assistant Deputy Minister.

The section of Yeates’s report that deals with Management Systems reads like a parable of contemporary Ottawa: a “series of periodic crises” that somehow nobody anticipated, “descend[ing] into ‘issues management.’” What’s needed is much better planning and reporting, he wrote. When he was running the department barely a decade ago, every part of the department was reporting on progress against targets every three months. That system has fallen by the wayside. A department that’s obsessed with its “priorities” or with the to-do items in “a minister’s mandate letters” is “inherently limited” and guaranteed to be side-swiped by events intruding from the real world, he wrote.

The upshot of all this tunnel vision was that the department was expecting to “lapse,” or leave unspent, $368 million in projected spending for the year underway, even as passport-related spending was projecting a $238 million deficit.

Yeates’s report closed with the sort of plea that’s traditional in this sort of exercise, essentially pleading not to be ignored. “IRCC is at a crossroads and as Yogi Berra famously quipped ‘when you come to a fork in the road, take it,’” he wrote. Change is hard, but a “substantial majority” of the people he interviewed told him it was overdue.

Neil Yeates and Christiane Fox.

And that’s where the report ends. I had to decide what to do with it. First, always consider the possibility that you’ve been handed a fake report, or the first draft of something that was later amended beyond recognition. I emailed the office of Immigration Minister Marc Miller looking for comment. They handed me off to the civil servants in the department’s communications staff. But I also emailed Christiane Fox, the deputy minister, offering her a chance to comment. This is the sort of chance that people in Ottawa usually don’t touch with a barge pole.

But Fox called me on Thursday night and responded in detail. I asked: was the conversation on the record? She thought out loud for a few seconds, working her way up to a “Yes.” I don’t want to belabour this, but that answer is very rare these days.

The other way you can help me, besides subscribing, is to tell people about the work I’m doing here. Share this story with friends and family, or post it to your social networks. Let people know what we’re building here.

Share

Christiane Fox had been the DM at Indigenous Services for all of 22 months when she was sent to run IRCC in July of 2022. The new job “felt like crisis”: the department was sending weekly updates to an ad hoc committee of ministers whose job was to fix months of chaos in airports and passport offices.

“They felt like they were under duress,” Fox said. “Everyone was exhausted.” New staff were just “tacked on when there was a problem,” including the creation of an entirely new sector for Afghanistan. Fox talked about this with some of the most experienced public servants in town, including Yeates and Richard Dicerni, Fox’s former DM from her days as a young public servant at Industry, who passed away this summer and whose contribution to public life in Canada is hard to measure.

“I kind of said, ‘We’ve got to make some changes. And I don’t want to do it overnight. But I also don’t want to spend two years figuring out what a new model could look like.’” Yeates, whom she didn’t know well but who knew the department’s history, seemed like solid outside counsel.

While Yeates was doing his thing, Fox and the previous immigration minister, Sean Fraser, were consulting — with “business leaders, academics and clients” — about the department’s future. By June of this year, she had a plan, based on Yeates’s report and those consultations. She’s been rolling it out since then, from top managers on down, and on Wednesday, by way of explanation for the changes that are coming, she sent the Yeates report to enough people that I got a copy. A department-wide meeting is scheduled for this coming week.

What’s changing? “The model is now just more of a business-line model,” she said, reflecting Yeates’s first big recommendation.

So there’ll be a stronger crisis-planning sector. In a world that keeps producing humanitarian crises, the goal is to learn lessons for next time from Ukraine, Afghanistan and elsewhere. “Most importantly, we’ll have a group dedicated to thinking about these issues, planning for crisis.” It won’t eliminate the need to “surge,” or quickly add new staff when something flares up. “But in the past, we ended up surging so much that all of our other business lines suffered every time there was a crisis.” The goal now is to get better at anticipating so the department’s regular work doesn’t suffer.

“Asylum and Refugee. There was no Asylum ADM,” she said, reflecting another Yeates critique. “This is probably the thing that causes me the most heartache, in terms of, how are we going to deal with this as a country, globally? What are some of the tools that we have? How do we support the most vulnerable? How do we have a system that is fast and fair? So Asylum and Refugee will now be a sector within the department.”

In addition, there’ll be a sector focused on Economic Immigration and Family. “The business community didn’t really feel like we were actually talking to them about labour shortages, about skills missions, about what is the talent that the country needs.” And a sector on francophone immigration, identifying French-speaking sources of immigration and taking into account the needs of French-speaking newcomers.

“Other sectors remain kind of consistent. Like, we’ve always had a focus on border and security, but we will now have a team that’s really migration integrity, national security, fraud prevention, and looking at case management in that context.”

Fox said she’s working on more of a “client focus” in the department’s work. “When I joined the department I remember, my first few weeks, thinking, ‘Everybody talks about inventory and backlog and process.’ But I didn’t feel clients and people were at the forefront.” This may sound like a semantic difference. But anyone who’s been treated as inventory and backlog can testify to the potential value in any reform that restores a measure of humanity to recipients of government service.

I’ve been arguing for months here that simply acknowledging problems and identifying possible solutions is better communications than the happy-face sloganeering that passes for so much of strategic comms these days. Here, quite by accident, I’d stumbled across somebody who seems to have had similar thoughts. (There’s an irony here, because Fox’s CV includes a long stint as a director of strategic communications in the Privy Council Office.)

“There will be things that will come up,” Fox said, “that may not be as smooth a transition as we thought, or maybe a bit clunky, that we need to rethink. What we’ve told the employees is, it won’t be perfect. We needed to change, we’re going to change, but there’s going to be room for conversation around issues that arise as we go through this process.”

To subscribe to the full Paul Wells experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 12 hours ago

Alberta court upholds conviction of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for preaching at Freedom Convoy protest

Opinion / 15 hours ago

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Health / 15 hours ago

Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety

Opinion

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Published on November 1, 2024

By

Let’s get real about what’s going on in Canada right now. In the Meeting No. 130 PROC – Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on Bill C-65, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal minions, backed by their trusty NDP sidekicks, are pushing forward a so-called “reform” to delay Canada’s next election. Their excuse? They’re “making voting more inclusive.” But the real reason? To buy themselves a cushy retirement at your expense.

Here’s the scheme: Trudeau and his Liberal-NDP alliance want to push the election back by a week. Not to secure democracy, not to make voting accessible, but to guarantee that MPs who were elected in 2019 get their golden parachute—hitting that magic six-year mark to cash in on their pensions. They’re wrapping it all up in talk about “accessibility” and “inclusivity,” but the facts laid out in committee make it clear—this is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded jackpot for Trudeau’s coalition. It’s like watching a heist in slow motion, and the people pulling it off are your elected officials.

Let’s break down the facts: Bill C-65 is presented as a way to make voting “inclusive” by moving the election from October 20 to October 27 to avoid overlapping with Diwali. Really? Suddenly the Trudeau government is all about Diwali? When did Justin Trudeau become the defender of every cultural holiday? If that were true, they’d be calling a snap election to get back to Canadians sooner, not later. But this isn’t about inclusivity; it’s about squeezing the system dry for every penny they can get.

Conservative MP Eric Duncan and Bloc MP Marie-Hélène Gaudreau saw right through it. They grilled Trudeau’s Privy Council Office (PCO) witnesses, who came armed with vague talking points but no real answers. The obvious question: Why push the election back when we already have advance polling? The answer? Crickets. The PCO’s representatives mumbled about “scheduling challenges” and “inclusivity,” but never explained why delaying the election is somehow the only solution.

And who’s standing right next to Trudeau in this scheme? The NDP. Trudeau’s favorite backup team, once again signing onto a shady deal to keep their coalition afloat. The NDP’s MP Daniel Blaikie was all in, rubber-stamping the date change. The reason? This move locks in the pensions not just for Liberals, but for their NDP buddies too. The whole thing reeks of backroom deals and mutual back-scratching. It’s a classic case of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”—and Canadian taxpayers are left footing the bill.

In committee, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen tried to play damage control, dismissing the pension concern as “Conservative scandal-mongering.” That’s right, folks: If you’re upset that your tax dollars are funding a Liberal-NDP pension scheme, Gerretsen says you’re the problem. He and his Liberal colleagues want you to believe that this bill is about “democracy.” But tell me, how democratic is it to change election dates so politicians can milk the system?

The Damning Parts of Bill C-65

So what are the most damning parts of Bill C-65? It’s a textbook case of self-serving political maneuvering. First, there’s the election date change itself—a convenient one-week delay that coincides perfectly with the deadline for MPs elected in 2019 to secure their pensions. This timing isn’t just suspicious; it’s blatant. With no other compelling reason, Trudeau’s Liberals are trying to sell the public on a delay that just happens to benefit their own pocketbooks. What’s even more shocking is that they’re hiding behind Diwali, as if Canadians can’t see right through it.

And the privacy implications? Almost completely glossed over. Bill C-65 falls flat on providing robust privacy protections. Instead, it opens the door for political parties to access voters’ sensitive data under a weak framework that offers minimal oversight. This is more than a missed opportunity; it’s an intentional sidestep to ensure politicians retain easy access to personal information for campaigning purposes.

Then there’s the lack of genuine accountability for foreign interference. Sure, they included some anti-interference provisions, but glaring loopholes remain. Leadership races and nomination contests are still fair game for foreign influence. The Liberals tout this bill as election protection, but when it comes to securing the integrity of the entire process, they’ve left the doors wide open.

Trudeau’s Swamp: When “Inclusivity” Is Just a Cover for Corruption

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Justin Trudeau’s government isn’t interested in protecting democracy; they’re interested in protecting their own pockets and political power. Bill C-65 is the latest swamp maneuver by a Liberal-NDP alliance that wants you to believe their motives are pure, cloaking a blatant cash grab under the guise of “inclusivity” and “accessibility.” But real inclusivity doesn’t need backroom deals or sudden election delays. Real inclusivity doesn’t make a mockery of Canadians’ intelligence by pretending a pension-padding scheme is about respecting religious holidays.

This is Trudeau’s swamp at its finest—sneaking in self-serving perks under the cover of high-minded ideals. By claiming they’re moving the election for “cultural sensitivity,” they’re hoping Canadians will overlook what’s really going on: a calculated effort to stretch their time in office just long enough to qualify for generous pensions. And Jagmeet Singh? He’s right there beside Trudeau in this scheme, securing his own taxpayer-funded future, while selling out the values he claims to stand for. This is a backroom deal that pays off for everyone except Canadian taxpayers, who get nothing but excuses and empty rhetoric.

And when opposition MPs raised these glaring issues—why Canadians are seeing no real electoral reforms or accountability—Trudeau’s team sidestepped, evaded, and downplayed. Even the so-called “anti-interference” measures fall flat, with loopholes so wide you could drive a truck through them. Foreign interference protections that ignore internal nomination contests? Privacy policies that allow political parties to dip into Canadians’ data with next to no oversight? It’s government overreach at best, outright negligence at worst, and yet they insist this is all about “democracy.”

If Trudeau’s government truly cared about protecting democracy, they wouldn’t be delaying elections to suit their pension schedules. They’d be calling an election to let Canadians decide who deserves to lead, right now. But they won’t do that because they know they’re losing the trust of Canadians, who are waking up to these games. They’d rather delay, manipulate, and cash in, hoping that enough time will make people forget this little “adjustment” to the election date.

This isn’t just political maneuvering; it’s a power grab. Trudeau and Singh are the faces of a swamp that puts self-interest before public service, personal gain before genuine leadership. They’re bending the rules to keep themselves and their allies comfortable, all while counting on Canadians to stay distracted. But Canadians are smarter than that, and they’re watching as this government dips into their wallets, lines their own pockets, and calls it “inclusivity.”

This is government corruption disguised as progressivism. This is your leadership in Canada today—when the very people elected to serve Canadians are the ones robbing them blind, hiding behind “woke” language to pull off their heist. Trudeau’s swamp doesn’t just run deep; it’s becoming the whole system. And every day they stay in power, they’re counting on Canadians to look the other way.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Health

Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety

Published on November 1, 2024

By

News release from the World Council of Health Canada

Canadian Health Authorities Served Over Childhood Vaccine Information

Children’s Health Defense, Canada Health Alliance, Vaccine Choice Canada, and WCH Canada joined this week to serve health officers and ministers of health across the country.

The Canada Health Alliance, Children’s Health Defense Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada, and the World Council For Health Canada united this week to put Fraser Health and other health authorities across Canada on notice regarding dangerous information being provided to parents and families about vaccinations. Fraser Health, one of five regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada, is responsible for delivering health care services to a population of over 2 million people in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. Fraser Health is currently promoting COVID-19 genetic “vaccines”  and various traditional vaccines for children and youth. The information that Fraser Health is providing is inaccurate and dangerous. Like many governmental agencies in Canada and elsewhere, Fraser Health is promoting misleading claims of safety and efficacy for DNA-contaminated, modified-RNA, genetic “vaccines” for COVID-19, as well as various traditional vaccines for other infections. Children’s health and lives are at risk.

On October 28, 2024, four major Canadian health organizations together sent a registered open letter to all medical health officers in Fraser Health, as well as mailed copies to all other district medical health officers in BC; all provincial, territorial, and federal chief medical officers of health; and all provincial, territorial, and federal health ministers. Appropriate cover letters were included for each recipient.

The intent of these letters is to reach the heart of the recipients, inspiring them to take corrective action on dangerous misinformation regarding childhood vaccines.
October 25, 2024

Re: Open Letter to Fraser Health Authority

We are writing in response to the information currently being disseminated by various public health officers at the request of Fraser Health Authority utilizing the ‘Healthy Schools Communications Toolkit’. (Source)

The broader medical community, the public, and especially parents look to health authorities such as Fraser Health Authority to provide accurate, up-to-date information to assist in making informed decisions regarding the health and safety of children.

Statements in the ‘Healthy Schools Communication Toolkit’ issued by Fraser Health Authority in recent weeks claim, with no conditions or qualifiers, that vaccines are ‘safe, effective and necessary’ for the health and safety of children.

These statements are inaccurate and misleading.

Of particular note for being misleading and outright dishonest are the following:

  • Tdap-IPV: protects against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and polio.
  • “Vaccines are safe and are your child’s best protection.”
  • Repeatedly misrepresenting “vaccination” as “immunization” (Source)
  • “The COVID-19 vaccines . . . are safe, effective and will save lives.”
  • “Vaccines do more than protect the people getting vaccinated, they also protect everyone around them. The more people in a community who are immunized and protected from COVID-19, the harder it is for COVID-19 to spread.”
  • “The best way to protect others and reduce the risk of getting sick with the flu and COVID-19 is to get immunized. The flu and COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective and available for free to anyone aged six months and older. It is much safer to get the vaccines than to get the illnesses.” (Source)

These statements are especially disconcerting given recent disclosures related to the lack of evidence of the safety of childhood vaccines and the COVID ‘vaccine’ in particular.

The COVID ‘Vaccine’

The claim of safety of the COVID ‘vaccine’ cannot be made in the face of the May 29, 2024 admission by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in response to an order paper question from Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall. (Source) The Public Health Agency of Canada acknowledged that booster recipients have higher death numbers than the unvaccinated. The report states: “Across all weeks in the time period of interest, the number of deaths were highest among those with a primary series and 1 additional dose.”

Despite PHAC urging caution in interpreting the data, they fail to address their own misleading definitions when they identify vaccine recipients as “unvaccinated” during the first 14 days following vaccination, the period of high lethality after the injections. The misleading use of the term “unvaccinated” renders all information from the PHAC and Health Canada unreliable and validates the safety and efficacy concerns surrounding these products.

Researchers investigating the safety and effectiveness of Pfizer’s vaccine in fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated children and teens found cases of myocarditis and pericarditis only in vaccinated children. (Source) The study also found that initial protection by BNT162b2 vaccination against positive SARS-CoV-2 tests in adolescents aged 12-15 had waned by 14 weeks after vaccination. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer of Children’s Health Defense states: “This study clearly shows that Pfizer’s COVID vaccine provides almost no benefit to children and adolescents but does increase their risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. It begs the question: Why does the CDC continue to recommend these unlicensed shots for kids? Where is the data they use to support their statement that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks?”

On October 7,2024, Florida State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo announced new guidance regarding mRNA vaccines. (Source) The Florida Department of Health conducted an analysis to evaluate vaccine safety. This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks. As such, the State Surgeon General recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The Department continues to stand by its Guidance for Pediatric COVID-19 Vaccines, issued March 2022, which recommends against use in healthy children and adolescents 5 years old to 17 years old. This now includes recommendations against COVID-19 vaccination among infants and children under 5 years old.

The following is beyond medical debate and considered accepted medical knowledge:

  • The COVID injections do not stop COVID infection or transmission.
  • Healthy young people have essentially zero risk of serious illness and death from COVID.
  • • Since the COVID mRNA “vaccines” were given to the public, over 1.6 million adverse events and over 38,000 deaths related to these injections have been reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the US. Among these toxicities, increased rates of myocarditis—sometimes fatal—in young people, especially boys, have been demonstrated in recipients of the mRNA injections.
  • Additionally laboratory analysis has found high levels of DNA adulteration, and multiple undeclared genetic sequences in both Moderna and Pfizer Covid-19 genetic “vaccines”.
  • The Pfizer and Moderna COVID mRNA injections, while commonly called vaccines, are not true vaccines, but a type of mRNA-based gene therapy. In effect, they are ‘vaccines-in-name-only’.

There is no legitimate medical justification for healthy children or young adults to receive the COVID mRNA injections. Any institution continuing to refer to these injections as ‘vaccines’ and declaring them to be “safe and effective” is intentionally misinforming the public and health practitioners alike. This demonstrates a blatant disregard for scientific evidence and the health of our children and youth.

Lack of Proven Safety of Childhood Vaccines

In August 2024 Vaccine Choice Canada sent personalized letters (Source) to all provincial Health Ministers and chief public health officers, including Dr. Bonnie Henry, on the lack of proper safety testing of childhood vaccines. In that letter VCC stated:

“In the July 6, 2024 publication of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Stanley Plotkin et al. (Source) admitted “the need for more rigorous science” pertaining to the safety of vaccines. They noted that “In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored.”

What Plotkin and his fellow authors acknowledged is that the science to conclude vaccine safety is inadequate. (Source) Additionally, in 2023 the Informed Consent Action Network confirmed that “none of the vaccine doses the CDC recommends for routine injection into children were licensed based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial.” (Source) This is also true for Health Canada.

Further, five studies comparing unvaccinated children with vaccinated children provide compelling evidence that the current vaccination schedule is harming our children and a significant contributor to the epidemic of chronic disease in children today. (A New Parents Guide to Understanding Vaccination)

There is no substantive evidence to claim that the following vaccines prevent infection or transmission:

  • Pertussis
  • Polio
  • Tetanus
  • COVID
  • Influenza
  • Diphtheria

These vaccine products are designed to minimize symptoms, and do not prevent infection or transmission. Referring to these products as “immunizations” is misleading and dishonest. With these critical disclosures, it is no longer honest, responsible, or ethical for Public Health authorities to claim that “vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective”.

Fraser Health has no scientific basis to assure parents that giving their children vaccines is “your child’s best protection” when none of the vaccines on the childhood schedule have been tested for safety and effectiveness against a true placebo. That claim is scientifically unsupported and contradicts what is medically known.

It is time to cease the unqualified claim that “vaccines are safe, effective and necessary”.

Canada has consumer protection laws which prohibits engaging in any act or practice that is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer. Because parents rely on Health Canada and our Public Health Officers when they make health care decisions, children are harmed by the misleading and deceptive claims of health agencies such as Fraser Health Authority. These consumer protection laws need to be enforced.

Conclusion

  • Public Health agencies such as Fraser Health Authority continue to mislead and deceive the public by maintaining the unsubstantiated claim that vaccines are safe, effective and necessary. That claim requires immediate retraction and correction.
  • Public Health undermines their credibility in making such unsubstantiated statements and puts the credibility of the entire health care system at risk.
  • We appeal to your moral and legal responsibility to be fully transparent regarding the limitations on the evidence of vaccine safety, effectiveness and necessity.

We expect you will address this matter with the same seriousness that we are and we look forward to receiving your response.

Sincerely,

Ted Kuntz, President, Vaccine Choice Canada

Dr. Bill Code, President, Canada Health Alliance

Dr. Mark Trozzi, President, World Council for Health Canada

Christine Colebeck, President, Children’s Health Defence Canada

Organizations

The Canada Health Alliance, Children’s Health Defense Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada, World Council For Health Canada, and the World Council For Health International.

Related Material

  • Here is honest, concise information about vaccines and genetic injections in the form of a 6-minute video. Please share this liberally with parents, teachers, and families (Click Here)
  • Vaccine Choice Canada’s New Parents’ Guide to Understanding Vaccinations (Click Here)
  • Children’s Health Defense Canada. A Parents’ Guide to Healthy Children. (Click Here)
  • World Council For Health International 2022 Alert to Parents Regarding Children and Covid-19 Genetic “Vaccines”. English, Spanish, and German. (Click Here)
  • Children Should Be Freed Now and Never COVID-Injected. Children are by nature very resistant to coronavirus infection for multiple reasons that we will concisely discuss below. (Click Here)
  • COVID Injections: Unveiling the Mechanisms of Harm. New pathology, a new wave of disease, and 44 common examples of injection-induced illnesses supported by over 930 scientific publications linking these diseases with the injections. (Click Here)
  • Canada Health Alliance. Why Do Vaccines Continually Fail to Live Up to Their Promises? (Click Here)
Continue Reading

Trending

X