COVID-19
WHO health treaty a convenient cover for more government overreach: Bruce Pardy

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Bruce Pardy
The updated regulations will transform the WHO from an advisory body to the directing mind and will of global health.
Last September, the CBC ran a hit piece on Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis after she warned that a new international pandemic treaty could undermine Canadian sovereignty over public health.
Catherine Cullen, the CBC journalist, quoted three academics to debunk Lewis’ claims. It’s nonsense, said Stephen Hoffman of York University. “So far from the truth that it’s actually hard to know where to begin,” said Kelley Lee of Simon Fraser University. It’s fearmongering, said Timothy Caulfield of the University of Alberta, as no treaty can suspend the Canadian Constitution. That last part is correct, but Lewis is right to be concerned. Under the guise of international cooperation, governments are devising a cover to enact even tougher public health restrictions next time a crisis is declared.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is drafting a new pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations, which since 2005 have set out countries’ obligations for managing the international spread of disease. Member countries of the World Health Assembly are expected to approve both in May. The agreement would establish governing principles for an international pandemic management regime, and the updated regulations will transform the WHO from an advisory body to the directing mind and will of global health.
Technocrats learned a lot from COVID. Not how to avoid policy mistakes, but how to exercise control. Public authorities discovered that they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their businesses, made them wear masks and herded them to vaccination clinics. In Canada and elsewhere, people endured the most extreme restrictions on civil liberties in peacetime history. If the new proposals are anything to go by, next time may be worse.
Under the new health regulations, the WHO will have the authority to declare public health emergencies. Countries will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations.” WHO measures “shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties … (who) shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”
In other words, governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. They will make private citizens and domestic businesses comply too. Lockdowns, quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travel restrictions and more will be on the table. Under the draft agreement, countries would commit to censoring “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.” During COVID, despite governments’ best efforts, dissidents managed to seed doubts about the mainstream pandemic narrative. In the future, things may be different.
WHO officials and proponents of the proposals won’t admit to any of this out loud, of course, and you won’t hear much about these plans in the mainstream press. But the draft proposals, at least the ones released, say so in black and white.
Many national governments will be on board with the plan. That may seem counterintuitive since it appears to diminish their control, but more valuable to them is the cover that WHO directives will provide for their own heavy hands. Officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing international obligations. Binding WHO recommendations leave them no choice, they will say. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.”
That sounds like a loss of sovereignty, but it is not. Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their own territory. WHO directives would not be directly enforceable in Canadian courts. But national governments can agree to follow the authority of international organizations. They can craft domestic laws accordingly. That too is an exercise of sovereignty. They can undertake to tie their own hands.
Provinces might decide to go along also. Provinces have jurisdiction over many orders that the WHO might recommend. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, quarantine orders and other public health restrictions are primarily provincial matters. The feds control air travel, international borders, the military, drug approvals and the federal workforce. The federal government’s power to make treaties cannot oust provincial legislative jurisdiction, but WHO cover for restrictive measures would appeal to provinces as well.
The WHO cannot suspend the Constitution. International norms, however, can influence how courts read constitutional provisions, and the meaning of the Constitution is fluid, as our Supreme Court is fond of insisting. If norms change, so might the court’s interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The WHO’s proposals can’t define Canadian constitutional rights, but they aren’t irrelevant either.
Proponents would deny that the WHO is seizing control or undermining democracy. Technically they are correct. National governments must approve the new international pandemic plan. Without their agreement, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates. And not all countries may be keen on all the details. The WHO proposals call for massive financial and technical transfers to developing countries. But climate change pacts do too, and these were embraced by rich countries, unable to resist the virtue signaling and validation of their own climate boondoggles.
States that sign on to the WHO proposals retain the sovereignty to change their minds, but leaving international regimes can be hellishly difficult. When the United Kingdom belonged to the European Union, it agreed to be subject to EU rules on all manner of things. It remained a sovereign country and could decide to get out from under the EU’s thumb. Brexit threatened to tear the country apart. Having the legal authority to withdraw does not mean that a country is politically able to do so. Or that its elites are willing, even if that’s what its people want.
The WHO proposals prescribe authority without accountability, but they do not eliminate sovereignty. Instead, national governments are in on the game. When your own government aims to manage you, national sovereignty is no protection anyway.
Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe, professor of law at Queen’s University and senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
2025 Federal Election
Before the Vote: Ask Who’s Defending Our Health

From the World Council for Health Canada
The health of Canadians has been compromised by government-mandated COVID-19 injections. The upcoming federal election is an opportunity to demand change and accountability. As you decide which candidate or party is most committed to defending the health of yourself and your family, please consider the following:
The Injections Were Never What They Claimed
The Canadian government successfully mandated the COVID-19 injections by labeling them “safe and effective vaccines.” These products are still being promoted and administered across the country. However, the truth is:
- They are not vaccines: Click Here
- They are not safe: Click Here
- They do not prevent infection or transmission.
- Evidence shows they increase the risk of COVID-19 disease and death: Click Here
These Products Contain Multiple Mechanisms of Harm
- They cause injury through multiple biological mechanisms: Click Here
- They have surpassed all vaccines in recorded history—for all infections, for all of the past thirty years combined—in causing deaths and injuries: Click Here
- They are chemically contaminated and adulterated with DNA: Click Here
- In Pfizer’s case, fraud is evident: the DNA contamination includes genetic engineering tools derived from the SV40 virus, associated with cancer risks: Click Here
This Election, We Must Demand Accountability
Insist that to have your vote, candidates must:
- Denounce the COVID-19 “vaccines.”
- Support a full halt to their manufacturing and administration.
- Uphold informed consent, scientific integrity, and bodily autonomy.
Your voice is important. Use it to reject censorship, harm, and medical coercion.
COVID-19
The Pandemic Justice Phase Begins as Criminal Investigations Commence

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Hulscher interviews the two attorneys who filed criminal referrals in 7 states—triggering active criminal investigations into top COVID officials for murder, terrorism, and racketeering.
In this explosive episode of Focal Points, I sit down with two fearless attorneys from Vires Law Group—Rachel Rodriguez and Mimi Miller—who are leading a historic legal effort to hold top public health officials accountable for their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rachel, founder of the Vires Law Group in South Florida, entered the fight through early litigation against mask and vaccine mandates. Mimi, a former criminal prosecutor, joined Rachel in 2023. Together, they’ve now filed seven criminal referral requests to Attorneys General across the U.S. accusing Fauci and top COVID officials of serious crimes such as murder, racketeering, fraud, abuse, and terrorism. These efforts have already resulted in two active criminal investigations:
In this interview, we dive deep into the criminal referrals:
The Accused
Dr. Anthony Fauci – Former Director, NIAID
Dr. Cliff Lane – Deputy Director, NIAID
Dr. Francis Collins – Former Director, NIH
Dr. Deborah Birx – Former White House COVID Response Coordinator
Dr. Rochelle Walensky – Former Director, CDC
Dr. Stephen Hahn – Former Commissioner, FDA
Dr. Janet Woodcock – Principal Deputy Commissioner, FDA
Dr. Peter Hotez – Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine
Dr. Robert Redfield – Former Director, CDC
Dr. Peter Daszak – President, EcoHealth Alliance
Dr. Ralph Baric – Professor, University of North Carolina
Dr. Rick Bright – Former Director, BARDA
Administrators of various hospital systems and care facilities.
Applicable Crimes
The Vires Law Group is seeking state criminal investigations into the aforementioned individuals. The charges outlined include:
Terrorism
Under many state laws, terrorism includes committing crimes to coerce or influence government policy or civilian behavior. The attorneys argue that public fear was deliberately manufactured to increase uptake of vaccines, drive compliance, and suppress dissent—via manipulated death counts, relentless fear-based media messaging, and denial of early treatment.
Murder & Involuntary Manslaughter
Patients were knowingly given lethal treatments such as remdesivir—despite it being pulled from an Ebola study for causing over 50% mortality. Families were denied the right to refuse treatment, and ventilators were used despite overwhelming evidence of fatal outcomes.
Aggravated Assault & Lack of Informed Consent
Patients were subjected to medical procedures—ventilators, remdesivir, and even COVID-19 vaccines—against their will or without informed consent. This constitutes unlawful bodily harm under most state statutes.
Racketeering (RICO)
The team alleges this was a coordinated scheme for profit—fueled by CARES Act incentives and PREP Act immunity—where hospital administrations financially benefited by complying with federal protocols at the expense of patient lives.
Abuse of Vulnerable Adults
Victims were elderly or incapacitated, often denied food, water, vitamins, and family visitation—all while being isolated and coerced into fatal treatment pathways.
Scope & Strategy
While the larger COVID response is under scrutiny, the petitions focus specifically on hospital homicides—where the legal case is strongest and where witnesses (survivors and next-of-kin) are actively seeking justice.
By targeting state-level criminal codes, the team bypasses federal hurdles and builds strategic, streamlined cases with clearly defined jurisdiction and causality.
The goal: create a roadmap for local prosecutors to pursue charges, without being overwhelmed or confused by federal overlap or civil legal complexities.
Victims, Whistleblowers & Ongoing Investigations
Two states have already opened active criminal investigations—though confidentiality laws prevent disclosure of details.
Over 200 victim cases are already included across the seven petitions, with many more expected to be added. These include next-of-kin statements, medical records, and evidence of systemic wrongdoing.
Former nurses, doctors, and hospital staff have come forward, risking their licenses and careers to expose the abuse, forced protocols, and fatal policies they witnessed firsthand.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
-
COVID-192 days ago
The Pandemic Justice Phase Begins as Criminal Investigations Commence
-
Autism2 days ago
RFK Jr. Completely Shatters the Media’s Favorite Lie About Autism
-
Economy1 day ago
The Net-Zero Dream Is Unravelling And The Consequences Are Global
-
Energy1 day ago
Federal Clean Power Plan Risks Blackouts And Higher Bills
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
The “Hardhat Vote” Has Embraced Pierre Poilievre
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Before the Vote: Ask Who’s Defending Our Health
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Homebuilding in Canada stalls despite population explosion
-
Alberta1 day ago
CPP another example of Albertans’ outsized contribution to Canada