Tuesday-night Trudeau

Posted with permission from Paul Wells

Justin Trudeau in a hangar, before the comeback, if there’s going to be one

If Justin Trudeau’s historic comeback happens, it will start sometime after Tuesday night, when he spoke to a Liberal Party of Canada fundraiser at the one-runway Gatineau Airport, 21 minutes’ drive from Rideau Cottage on the Quebec side of the river.

The prime minister is two months short of his 52nd birthday. Brian Mulroney was not quite 54 when he became the youngest undefeated prime minister, so far, to announce his retirement from politics. This is the sort of week when I look up numbers like that.

The polls since summer haven’t been kind to the Liberals. I have readers who get cross with me when I mention polls, but I cover the most polling-obsessed government in Canada’s history, and I must decline requests to unilaterally disarm.

Trudeau and his ministers do fundraisers all the time, as do the leaders and prominent MPs in other parties. The only difference on Tuesday was that I went to watch. After some embarrassing early headlines about fundraisers soon after the 2015 election, the Liberal Party changed its rules to increase transparency in fundraising. Now reporters get advance notice whenever Trudeau will be speaking at a fundraiser. I wanted to see what Trudeau says at such things these days, precisely because they’re routine events. Hearing how the prime minister talks to friendlies on a Tuesday night near home was, perhaps, the closest I could get to hearing how he talks to himself.

This event was a fundraiser for Gatineau MP Steven MacKinnon, a former Liberal Party national director who is serving as the government’s house leader while Karina Gould is on maternity leave. Two cabinet ministers were on hand too, Jean-Yves Duclos and Anita Anand. An organizer told the audience he’d been asked to get a smallish crowd out, “a good 50 or so;” since 67 people bought tickets, he was pretty pleased. The party had announced a ticket price up to $1,500. The crowd was of the sort that routinely gets described as overwhelmingly white and male when it’s a Conservative event, which means it was overwhelmingly white and male, but Liberal.

Trudeau spoke for twelve minutes. He opened by saying nice things about MacKinnon and thanked the two cabinet ministers. Poor Duclos thought he was just out to socialize, Trudeau joked, but Duclos is the minister of public services and procurement, “and around here we talk about a bridge.” Gales of laughter from the crowd. The riding association guy had also mentioned a bridge. There has been endless talk about a sixth bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau; neighbours near the various possible routes are leery, but a lot of people hope a new bridge would improve traffic flow, which often includes bumper-to-bumper heavy trucks on ordinary streets through the middle of Ottawa. A lot of the people who want the bridge the most run businesses. Judging from the PM’s choice of comic patter, they won’t have to wait long.

Trudeau thanked the crowd for coming out. “I know very well that everyone has plenty of choices for the various activities they could undertake on a Tuesday night in the month of October,” he said. This may have flattered the selection of fun activities in Gatineau on a Tuesday.

“You chose to come participate in a democratic event,” Trudeau continued. This was an instinct he could only applaud: “We know very well these days that it’s not always very motivating to get involved in politics. To raise your hand and say, ‘No, no, no, I want to participate in our democracy in an active and involved way. To take part in the conversations we’re having as a country in these difficult moments.’”

Trudeau contrasted this positive spirit with what certain other people, so far unnamed, like to do. “It’s very easy to point our finger at politicians, to complain about inflation or the pandemic or interest rates or labour shortages or housing or all these issues. It’s very easy, and many people decide to turn toward anger, anxiety, fear or division. Because it really pays over the short term, in politics, to rely on fear and division. But it’s so much more important to have a responsible, sensible approach, anchored in shared values. To try to bring us together rather than to divide us in an attempt to win a few points in the polls.”

One sensed an emerging central theme of contrast. “Your choice to come tonight to this Liberal event is enormously touching to me,” Trudeau said. “Because for eight years now, we’ve tried to be a government that stayed rooted in real things. In facts. In shared values. We bring people together rather than divide them for strategic reasons.”

Not only does his government, in his telling, think like good people, it does things good people will like.

“We manage to deliver for people. Even in extremely difficult moments like the ones we’re living through. People are struggling, because of the global context, extremely complex geopolitics that have a direct impact on pocketbooks, on groceries and rent. We have an important role to play as a government, to respond to today’s needs. That’s why we’ve made investments to help people pay their bills, to increase competition among the big grocers. We’re there to provide more daycare spaces. We’re there to help with dental care. We’re there to help with the Canada Child Benefit, which has lifted half a million children out of poverty in recent years. We’re there to create economic growth even as we fight against climate change.”

His audience for the night being mostly Quebecers and, as far as I could tell, mostly in business, the Liberal leader refined his course of general flattery to one of specific business-oriented flattery.

“I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to deliver in Quebec: Northvolt, Rio Tinto, REM… These are investments that show how much — here in Quebec where we’ve always understood that environmental protection and economic growth go together — everyone can make progress together.”

This was a pretty upbeat message, as partisan messages often are — we have the right ideas and the right results, and the other team is trying to wreck it all — but here again, as when he lamented how “not very motivating” the political life can be, Trudeau introduced a distinctly mournful note.

“As usual, it’s a bigger challenge to get this message out in the rest of Canada,” he said. At the risk of talking about polls, I couldn’t help thinking Trudeau was referring to recent pee oh ell ells that show Quebec as the only part of the country where his Liberals are in the lead. Despite big federal spending on Volkswagen ($13 billion) and Stellantis (probably more), the clean green future seems not to tempt a lot of Canadians. “It still feels far off, because the day-to-day is still difficult for many Canadians,” he said. “But we know very well that a society and a future are built step by step.…When we stay optimistic, when we’re reasonable, everything becomes possible in the future.”

This, he said, summing up, was “the political debate we’re having now…. Within two years — probably in two years — we’ll have elections.” That’s when people will get a chance to choose directions.

“Will we go back to the Conservative ways of trickle-down, cuts to social programs, advantages for the well-off in the hopes that they’ll eventually give everyone opportunity? It’s never worked and it won’t work better now.” Or would voters stick with the government Trudeau sees in the mirror? “We’re going to stay responsible but we’re going to keep investing,” he said.

Only now, at the end of his remarks, did Trudeau switch from French to English. “It’s always an incredible pleasure to spend time with people who are dedicated every day to building stronger communities and a stronger country.” And that was the end of that. The applause lasted for sixteen seconds. PMO staff led reporters out of the room — our access ends when the big guy stops talking.

A few observations on all this.

First, I’m struck by the way Trudeau narrowed down his expectation of election timing: “Within two years — probably in two years.” Probably anyone in a position of responsibility in any party would say an election could come any time, it’s wise to be ready, and so on. But in Trudeau’s mind, the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP seems likely to hold. He is not in a rush. Judgment Day isn’t until 2025.

Second, if he’s getting any advice to hit pause on carbon taxes, he sure doesn’t sound like he’s getting ready to take the advice. The heart of his case for himself is the notion that you can have clean energy and a thriving economy, and indeed that the latter depends on the former. That argument doesn’t require a carbon tax — theoretically, if you subsidize enough battery plants gasoline will become obsolete — but nothing in Trudeau’s fundraiser stump speech sounded like he was laying the predicate for a major retreat on carbon taxes.

BIG HONKING UPDATE, MINUTES LATER:

The feds have made a large announcement that shows the risks in making predictions. I quote:

“The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the government is moving ahead with doubling the pollution price rebate (Climate Action Incentive Payment) rural top-up rate, increasing it from 10 to 20 per cent of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure would help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city.

“Given the pressures faced by households and small businesses that use oil heating, the Prime Minister also announced that the government is moving ahead with a temporary, three-year pause to the federal price on pollution (fuel charge) on deliveries of heating oil in all jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge is in effect. This pause would begin 14 days from today. While the fuel charge is already returned to consumers through the pollution price rebate, this temporary pause would save a household that uses heating oil $250 at the current rate, on average, while the federal government works with provinces to roll out heat pumps and phase out oil for heating over the longer term.”

Third, and more generally, the case Trudeau was building was for more of the same. “It still feels far off, because the day-to-day is still difficult for many Canadians,” he said, which is how you talk when you’re hoping your ship comes in before people get a chance to pass judgment.

Incidentally, here I think it’s only fair to point out there’s been recent progress on files I often point to as evidence that Liberal plans never pan out. The Canada Growth Fund, the object of this newsletter’s first post, made its first investment this week, a $90 million equity play in a Calgary geothermal energy company. The Canada-US Energy Transformation Task Force held a second meeting. Maybe two years of process news like that will add up to an electorate that’s excited about Canada’s energy transformation. I mean, it’s possible.

Most of all, I was struck by how “more of the same” had better work for the Liberals, because if the boss has a better idea, he’s hiding it well. A leader who once ran on cost-of-living issues…

… is now running on the clean-energy future that feels tantalizingly out of reach, and lamenting his opponent’s insistence on running on cost-of-living issues. His best hunch about timing is that he has no reason to rush, and his best assessment of his work to date is that he needs to do more of it.

Liberals who feel more of a sense of urgency, futility or wasted energy will just have to get on board, I guess. The leader’s not for turning.

Subscribe to Paul Wells

Thousands of paid subscribers

Politics and culture as though they mattered.

Related Topics:#JustinTrudeau #LiberalsFederalElection #PaulWells #TuesdayNightTrudeau

Up Next

My Golden Retriever Confronts the Medical Juggernaut

Don't Miss

The Veil of Silence over Excess Deaths

Todayville

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

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

Opinion / 17 hours ago

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

Health / 17 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

Todayville

Dan Knight

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.

Health

Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety

Published on November 1, 2024

Todayville

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)