From 2009: WHO Guidance On International Health Regulations Implementation In National Legislation
"...the WHO’s International Health Regulations (or IHR), have been implemented domestically via the Quarantine Act and Public Health Acts... "
Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:
By canucklaw.ca November 19, 2023
Over the last few years, it’s been covered here how the WHO’s International Health Regulations (or IHR), have been implemented domestically via the Quarantine Act and Public Health Acts. It’s also been argued that the Public Health Agency of Canada (or PHAC), is effectively a local outpost of WHO.
To further bolster those claims, here’s a 2009 document from WHO, giving Member States advice on how to implement the 2005 version of those International Health Regulations. Interestingly, there seems to be little to no interest in any sort of democratic consultation.
The World Health Organization provides specific wording templates to use in upcoming legislation. In other words, these guidelines are being provided, and all that’s needed is to fill in the blanks.
and so on….
The document also uses legislation from countries around the world to give examples of how to implement it.
But don’t worry, it’s not a global conspiracy or anything.
And a serious question to ask: did anyone ever vote for this?
Was this on any official Federal or Provincial platform?
Was there a public referendum to examine if the citizens wanted this?
(2) IHR Toolkit For Implementation In National Legislation
(3) Wayback Machine Archive
LINKS TO ARTICLES WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION
WHO Constitution in 1946: Canada signs on to the WHO Constitution, a provision within states that adopting this document is a requirement to being a member. This was nearly 100 years ago that this was adopted.
Int’l Pandemic Treaty a red herring: Why the high profile “amendments” to the International Health Regulations are largely irrelevant. The short answer is that countries are already bound to their dictates. Yes, this just makes it more of a formality
IHR are legally binding: The International Health Regulations aren’t just “recommendations” as many might think. Member-states are legally required to implement these rules, although it’s unclear how disobedience might be punished in practice.
2005 Quarantine Act is 3rd Ed WHO-IHR: Bill C-12 was introduced in the House of Commons in late 2004. Supposedly”, this was in response to SARS a few years earlier. While the explanations sounded benevolent, the reality is that it laid the path for a lot of the martial law measures that happened in 2020-2023. It was also explicitly admitted during the hearings that the QA was designed in anticipation of new changes to WHO-IHR. (The 3rd Edition IHR eventually came out in 2005)
PHAC was created at instigation of WHO: The Public Health Agency of Canada was created out of nothing in June 2004, at the instigation of the WHO. The 133rd Session took place in January 2004 and required member-states to “develop a focal point” to respond to future health crises. That turned out to be PHAC. Several Orders-In-Council later, and it was embedded with other legislation. Once Harper took power in early 2006, he introduced the “PHAC Act, to give the new agency its own powers.
Health Canada pop’n control: PHAC isn’t the only problem that we’ve have to deal with. Health Canada (formerly the Department of Health) was created by Bill 37 back in 1919. The supposed reason was public health after WWI. HC has undergone transformations over the years, and a lot of its old functions are now covered by PHAC.
Provincial Health Acts are QA derivatives: a quick look through shows that they are written almost identically. They were all put in around 2007-2010, following the passage of the 2005 Quarantine Act. Political parties aside, they serve the same masters.
1st article: BC, AB, SK, MB, ON
2nd article: QC, NS, NB, PEI, NFLD
This was slipped into a Budget Bill, Bill C-97, back in 2019. It removes the requirement for parliamentary consultations when invoking the Quarantine Act, of Human Pathogens and Toxins Act. Considering the timing, it’s hard to argue this wasn’t pre-planned.
This hasn’t been updated in a long time, but the WHO-IHR statements are essentially guidelines for national and regional politicians to follow
The WHO-IHR is far from the only agreement that attacks our freedom. Another is the Sendai Framework, which serves to strip away many of the same rights: mobility, association, earning a livelihood, etc…. These same measures can be present in different forms.