The World Health Organization and Canada
Just as there are hundreds of bureaucrats in Ottawa working away at the global agendas of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations, so too are Canadian government officials advancing the initiatives of the World Health Organization (WHO). The ties between the WHO and the Trudeau government are perhaps of greatest concern because Canada has already ceded important health decision making processes. Our health officials have fallen into the orbital pull of the global health technocrats and today are adhering to the dictates of the WHO and its offices. Canadians should be more aware of the consequences of the WHO’s newfound authority, and its proposed powers in a time of a global pandemic crisis.
In this column, a number of loose ends are tied together to explain what is currently happening with the WHO, how this is played out in Canada, and what to look for in the coming weeks.
By way of background on the ties between the WHO and Canada (especially for those reading on this subject for the first time), here are By George Journal articles on the international health organization and its most recent assault on national interests in the post-pandemic period.
Of particular note in these articles is the international community’s adoption of the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the dramatic changes made with respect to the WHO authoritative role over its member countries. The WHO expects to ratify this transfer of authority in 2025 with the signing of a new Pandemic Treaty.
In Canada there is an immediate threat to Canadians’ autonomy – one that will put in place a structure that hands over the country’s decision making process to the WHO. The Trudeau government is attempting to fast-track legislation – Bill C-239 An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness – and Canadians need to be questioning the far reaching implications of the legislation on everything from the administration of vaccines to the country’s food supply during a pandemic. (More on Bill C-239 below.)
The WHO’s 2024 Powerplay
This year the WHO took four significant steps towards securing greater authority during a global pandemic period. The powerplay involves not only the coordinated response of 196 countries in a global health care crises, but also coordinated international action on matters as broad as food supply and agriculture, communications, and potentially environment concerns (i.e. climate change issues). The WHO is orchestrating a series of events that will result in a supra-national, global decision-making structure to manage its member countries with all facets of a pandemic response effort. Here is a summary of the four steps taken – the details of the initiatives can be found in the previously provided background articles.
Step one was achieved: to pass a comprehensive IHR document. The new regulations were agreed to in May at the WHO meetings even though the IHR document was not finalized and some of the contentious regulations were earmarked for further negotiations. It is unclear how the regulations have been finalized but problematic amendments included provisions that would empower the WHO Director-General to independently declare health emergencies and have the ability to declare a pandemic for “potential” rather than “actual” health emergencies. There were amendments that granted the WHO control over the production and allocation of medication (a.k.a. vaccines) during a pandemic, to share countries’ data without consent, to establish global surveillance processes to regularly review and verify compliance, to censor misinformation and disinformation on health and vaccine communications, and to implement health and safety measures. Another highly contentious set of amendments in the approved document have multiple IHR recommendations that are deemed “mandatory” for its member countries, rather than being designated “non-binding.” In summary, the new IHR document considerably strengthens the WHO’s authority at a time of a pandemic.
Further to establishing the regulations worldwide, the WHO officials and member countries are proceeding to finalize the problematic IHR amendments in the “consensus document,” in what is a publicly undefined time. While this occurs, each signatory country is to follow the WHO’s direction, as specified in the IHRs, to establish a national authority that will implement the global regulations within the country. For example, Canada is to put in place a “National IHR Authority” that “shall coordinate the implementation of these Regulations within the jurisdiction of the State Party.” Here is the last draft IHR document (dated June 1, 2024) that has been made public by the WHO.
Step two is underway: to finalize the text of a Pandemic Treaty (or an accord or agreement – using whatever moniker will pass) and have it signed by all countries at the World Health Assembly in 2025. The WHO’s attempt to get countries to sign onto a Pandemic Treaty at this year’s meetings failed, but the organization is pushing forward in any event. In May, the WHO requested $7 billion from its member states and private funders (i.e. the Gates Foundation) to finance, in part, the WHO’s administrative efforts in the drafting of a new treaty and completing the IHR document. The new treaty document will bind the signatories to the IHRs. Although some countries such as the US and Australia have been vocal in its criticisms of a WHO Pandemic Treaty, a vast majority of countries are willingly participating in advancing the treaty – and Canada is one of the active participants.
Step three is proceeding on schedule: to advance worldwide the notion of “One Health.” The idea of One Health is core to the global pandemic treaty, bringing a wide range of government activities, both health and non-health related under a single umbrella. The UN has described it this way, “One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.” The WHO has identified four lead agencies to manage the treaty and IHRs worldwide: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Environment Programme, the WHO, and the World Organization for Animal Health. The WHO documentation suggests that these agencies will oversee all health related activities as well as animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization, extractive industries, climate change, habitat fragmentation and encroachment into wild areas (ed. – land use management). The WHO is strongly advocating for this all-encompassing approach so that it becomes the accepted model of managing a pandemic.
Step four has begun: to introduce legislation in member countries that will establish the “One Health” approach to effectively pull together a full range of government departments in a time of crisis. In February 2024, the WHO called for countries to “scale up in implementing the One Health approach.” The intention is to have One Health legislation passed in the member countries so that a “health crisis” may be considered in the broadest terms, beyond the traditional sense of human health emergencies.
In Canada, the government introduced Bill C-293 legislation which makes direct reference to the One Health approach. For background on this legislation, read my recent Niagara Independent column: Bill C-293: establishing a new authority in Canada for the next global pandemic or I have also written a more extensive article on the matter: The “One Health” approach and Canada’s C-293 legislation. It is disconcerting that this complex and significant piece of legislation passed the House of Commons without public or media attention. Today, the bill is sitting at second reading in the Senate with only a legislative committee review and a few Senate votes away from becoming law of the land.
The steps taken by the WHO and its member countries are part of the march towards a global governance led by the leadership and managed by the bureaucrats within the WHO – and the UN and WEF. The leaders and bureaucrats of these organizations are intent on establishing the WHO as the sole international authority during the period of a pandemic (and as an authority that can proclaim the start and the duration of a global pandemic).
There are an increasing number of fierce critics of the global agendas, such as Dr. Meryl Nass from the US and Eva Vlaardingerbroek from Holland, who are warning about the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty and its potential to overreach beyond health issues to assume authority over jurisdictions on the basis of real or perceived crises on anything, and all things including climate change.
In an insightful piece published by Brownstone Institute, The WHO’s Road to Totalitarianism, Bert Olivier juxtaposes Dr. Nass’s views on the WHO with philosopher Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism. In doing so, Olivier summarizes Dr. Nass’s main criticisms of the WHO and the Pandemic Treaty in two paragraphs:
“On her website, called Freedom Research, Dr Meryl Nass has described the WHO’s notion of ‘pandemic preparedness’ as a ‘scam/boondoggle/Trojan horse,’ which aims (among other things) to transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to the WHO as well as other industries, in order to vindicate censorship in the name of ‘public health,’ and perhaps most importantly, to transfer sovereignty regarding decision-making for ‘public health’ globally to the Director-General of the WHO (which means that legally, member countries would lose their sovereignty).
In addition, she highlights the fact that the WHO intends to use the idea of ‘One Health’ to subsume all living beings, ecosystems, as well as climate change under its own ‘authority;’ further, to acquire more pathogens for wide distribution, in this way exacerbating the possibility of pandemics while obscuring their origin, and in the event of such pandemics occurring, justifying the development of more (mandatory) ‘vaccines’ and the mandating of vaccine passports (and of lockdowns) globally, thus increasing control (the key term here) over populations. Should its attempt at a global power grab succeed, the WHO would have the authority to impose any ‘medical’ programme it deems necessary for ‘world health,’ regardless of their efficacy and side-effects (including death).”
Further to this point, the WHO has publicly promoted measures to control populations during a pandemic. For example, in a 2022 meeting of the Leaders of the Group of 20 (G20) nations in Bali Indonesia, the WHO was instrumental in advancing a G20 joint statement that coordinated policies on possible global vaccine passports and “digital health” certificates. At the meeting, the intent of resolution was made clear by Indonesia’s Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin, who stated, “Let’s have a digital health certificate acknowledged by WHO -- if you have been vaccinated or tested properly -- then you can move around.”
The WHO objective to establish a digital ID is also an objective of the WEF. The globalists’ mission is to have an individual’s every activity placed on-line so that they may track and ultimately control finances, travel, consumer purchases – and one’s health. Imagine if government agencies could monitor everything from your grocery receipts to your vaccination record? (Read more in the By George Journal about the globalists’ objectives here: WEF’s Digital World: Of CBDCs & Digital IDs.)
Four of Canada’s backroom activities with the WHO
1. Pandemic Treaty: Canadian officials are active participants in advancing the drafting of the final WHO treaty text. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam is committed to helping the WHO officials. Under Dr. Tam, Canadian bureaucrats within the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the department of Health Canada are now working to ensure Canada will be prepared to sign the new Pandemic Treaty when it is presented at the May 2025 WHO Assembly meetings.
This month, from November 4th to 15th, public health officials are gathered in Geneva to work on the draft treaty text. There is little that is made public on the Canadian delegation at these WHO working sessions. No legacy media in Canada is reporting on these meetings and, in fact, no legacy media is tracking the developments of the treaty negotiations. However, the working sessions have been made public by the WHO and can be seen here: Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for a WHO instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
The passage of this Pandemic Treaty and Canada’s signature on the treaty document is of great significance for matters respecting Canadian sovereignty and individual freedom, as detailed in the previous articles on the global treaty initiative. I have likened the WHO Pandemic Treaty to Canada’s Emergencies Act on steroids.
2. Climate change as a health issue: One of the debates that is taking place by the drafters of the treaty documentation is whether a “global pandemic emergency” can be expanded in scope to include climate change threats, either real or perceived. PHAC delegates are at the forefront arguing for an expanded scope of definition. In a government response to Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis, PHAC stated, “The Government of Canada recognizes that other global health threats, such as climate change, can impact pandemics, and we incorporate these broader considerations in our domestic pandemic, planning, preparedness and response activities.”
It is unclear the exact role Canadian officials are playing in pursuing having climate change as part of the Pandemic Treaty, however the WHO has just issued a media release: WHO demands urgent integration of health in climate negotiations ahead of COP29. (COP29 is a UN meeting on the implementation of globalist measures to deal with climate change.) So, in advance of the UN’s meetings on climate change, the WHO issued a report on climate and health. This report “stresses the importance of positioning health at the core of all climate negotiations, strategies, policies and action plans, to save lives and secure healthier futures for present and future generations.”
The WHO report suggests a global governance structure that will integrate “health” in climate policy-making, and “climate” in health policy-making. The WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus states:
“The climate crisis is a health crisis, which makes prioritizing health and well-being in climate action not only a moral and legal imperative, but a strategic opportunity to unlock transformative health benefits for a more just and equitable future. COP29 is a crucial opportunity for global leaders to integrate health considerations into strategies for adapting to and mitigating climate change. WHO is supporting this work with practical guidelines and support for countries.”
In the media release, Dr. Maria Neira, who is the Director for Environment, Climate Change and Health at the WHO, states:
“Health is the lived experience of climate change. By prioritizing health in every aspect of climate action, we can unlock significant benefits for public health, climate resilience, security, and economic stability. Health is the argument we need to catalyze urgent and large-scale action in this critical moment.”
Dr. Meryl Nass questions the motives of the WHO and suggests we need to “follow the money”; this initiative to have health and climate change interwoven is financial. Indeed, follow the money… current estimates reveal that the globalists spearheading the green agenda and energy transition initiatives will need $1 trillion annually by 2030 and they are looking at every avenue to secure this funding.
Dr. Nass has posted an informative piece: The magical fusion of HEALTH with Climate Change: "WHO demands urgent integration of health in climate negotiations" -- to generate at least 1 Trillion/yr for the Green Transition and she asks “Will this new climate spin work? Trillions sought—to grab Biden's signature now while you can at COP29.”
To understand the games being played within the WHO and UN, Dr. Nass’s work is an important piece to read along side of the WHO’s recent media release. And a few important questions remain pertinent to Canada: what roles are Canadian officials playing in this health/climate gambit? How involved is the UN’s financier point man Mark Carney in structuring the international financial deals – and what has he committed Canada to pay?
3. Establishing One Health: With Bill C-293, the Trudeau Liberals are seeking to establish a new decision-making authority and the One Health approach for the country’s next pandemic response. As mentioned above, please refer to my Niagara Independent news column: Bill C-293: Establishing a new authority in Canada for the next global pandemic and for greater detail, read the By George Journal article: The “One Health” approach and Canada’s C-293 legislation.
In a sentence, One Health is a management approach that integrates government activities in responding to a pandemic crisis by centralizing control of everything from animal trade, agriculture, and livestock farming, to urbanization, natural resource industries, land use management – and potentially climate change.
Federal officials from PHAC to the department of Health Canada, to the department of Agriculture are working in step to advance the One Health approach within the Canadian government.
4. Establishing digital IDs for health data: The Trudeau government is also moving forward with national digital ID initiatives. Blacklock’s Reporter revealed recently that federal regulators were establishing digital credentials for Canadian public use though there has been no direction provided by parliamentarians, and opinion surveys all point to a rejection of national digital IDs.
A federal notice stated, “The Government of Canada is requesting information on current and future industry solutions that could provide a common set of capabilities to the Government of Canada and interested partners to enable them to issue, verify and revoke digital credentials, and enable their external and internal clients to hold, share and verify the digital credentials they issue.” Later it states, “The Government of Canada and interested partners, e.g. local, provincial and territorial governments, are working to establish digital credentials as a foundational pillar for delivering modern digital services, enabling people to interact with them with trust, speed and security.”
The notice compares “digital credentials” to mandatory federal ID like Social Insurance Numbers. It states, “Digital credentials are the equivalent of traditional physical credentials, enabling users to digitally prove things about themselves online and in person through a ‘holder component,’ e.g. digital wallet.”
Blacklock’s Reporter notes, “Parliamentary committees have repeatedly studied and rejected proposals for a national identification card.”
This activity within the Ottawa bureaucracy is a clear indication that, irrespective of national interests, the Trudeau government continues to work to evolve its digital ID system.
Remarkably, none of these details relating to digital IDs is being covered in legacy media. But fortunately, Canadians can receive their news from journalists on social media platforms and responsible online news sources like Blacklock’s Reporter.
Consider this current news story where Dr. Nass is raising awareness on her substack page. Were you aware that Canada, US, and Mexico launched a joint pandemic preparedness initiative involving the One Health approach last week? Dr. Nass highlights the work of Michael Nevradakis, a news reporter situated in Athens, Greece, who is tracking One Health initiatives. Here is something Canadians will never see on CBC News or in the Toronto Star: Are Vaccine Passports Just Around the Corner? U.S., Canada, Mexico Launch Pandemic Preparedness Initiative.
BTW, this is not some far fetched, conspiratorial suggestion. Again, this idea is found within the final communiques of the G20 Nations 2022 meetings. In the G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration, paragraph 23 reads, “We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations.”
From the Trudeau government’s participation with the Pandemic Treaty and One Health, to its role in advancing digital IDs, Canadians are entangled with the globalists’ agendas on multiple levels.
What to watch for in the weeks ahead
The WHO and the Pandemic Treaty
As the WHO drives towards finalizing the Pandemic Treaty, the organization itself and its objectives are facing an existential crisis with the Americans’ election of Donald J. Trump. The in-coming president has already repeatedly stated that the US will not only be pulling its support for the new global treaty, but that the US will be leaving the WHO and withdrawing its annual financial support of hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a substantial loss for the WHO.
As I am writing this article, the WHO has scheduled a media conference for November 11th when its officials will provide an update on the progress towards completing a pandemic treaty document. The WHO is expected to provide information on the next steps in their negotiations process.
(I will publish a post script to this article in the coming days for my paid subscribers.)
The WHO and climate change
The 2024 UN Climate Change Conference in Baku (COP29) is being held November 11th to 22nd where they will be considering the relationship between health and climate change. The UN delegations will use the prompting from the WHO to evolve the definitions and marry the global causes of pandemic responsiveness and climate change.
All three global organizations – WHO, WEF and UN – will now claim “Health is the argument for climate action.” As the WHO reports, “Climate change is making us sick, and urgent action is a matter of life and death.”
The UN meetings are expected to issue new declarations that will cement this notion that climate change is a health issue and health is linked to climate change.
(I will publish a post script for my paid subscribers on the UN’s activities as resolved at the current meetings. I will also consider the Canadian government’s position and follow through commitments.)
Bill C-293 is in the Senate
There are five weeks of Senate Chamber time before the Christmas recess. It will be interesting to watch the Trudeau Liberals push Bill C-293 in the Upper House now that there is vocal opposition to the legislation.
The World Council for Health (WCH) Canada is a citizens group that is raising greater awareness in Canada to the designs of the WHO and the other global organizations. One of its current priorities is to expose the intent behind Bill C-293 and the One Health approach. Learn more about the WCH Canada here.
There is also a new citizen-led campaign “Kill Bill C-293” that is sounding the alarm to the dangers of the legislation. The organization asserts: “This Bill allows the World Health Organization (WHO) to make agreements with Public Health directly, attempting to eliminate jurisdiction of the courts and the constitution. It allows Public Health control over communications infrastructure, instituting interlinking surveillance.”
Watch the progress of the legislation here: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
(Again, I will publish a post script for my paid subscribers on the progress of the legislation between now and when the Senate rises for its holiday break.)
This is the 14th article in the By George Journal series on globalists agendas and their impact on Canadians. For an index of previous articles, click here: The Globalists’ Agendas vs Canadians’ National Interests.
We the elderly who read articles such as yours can understand the ramifications that will take place if the U.N. and the WHO are successful in achieving their stated goals but the generations behind us, as you state are not being made aware by the legacy media, print, technology and Telecom, of what is taking place behind their backs, and are likely to busy trying to make a decent living to bother pay attention to the U.N. Social media Podcasts don’t seem to be interested in spreading the word. Those of us who have been around for four score and more are not listened too, but called conspiracy pushers. If hope springs eternal we can only hope there will be a major awakening among the younger generations.
The Trudeau Agenda continually front ends the New World Order and UN policies to end any concept of democracy and independence of nations and peoples. As pointed out much of Trudeau’s activities are well out of the spotlight he usually runs toward, and could easily be in play before Canadians know it. One positive point in all this is President Trump will readily disconnect a lot of these plans from the UN and WHO.