Hello everybody, and welcome to this special episode

of True Hope Cast, the official podcast of True Hope Canada.

We have had an overwhelming amount of requests

for the latest information on Bill C 69

and what effects it has on the natural

health industry here in Canada.

So we thought it best to bring on the president

of the N-H-P-P-A constitutional lawyer, Sean Buckley,

to the show Bill C 69, also known

as the Budget Implementation Act of 2024.

Proposed changes that would give Health Canada extraordinary

power to regulate the off-label use of drugs

and natural health products alike.

This could severely impact the freedom

of medical professionals

and natural health practitioners

to deliver effective healthcare, as well

as restrict public access to these essential treatments.

Unfortunately, bill C 69 became law on June 20th, 2024.

In this episode, VP of True Hope Canada, Mr. David Steffen

and lawyer Sean Buckley,

discussed Bill C 69 Canada's Health

Freedoms and much, much more. Enjoy the show.

Hello everybody. I'm David Stefan with True Hope Canada.

I oversee the retail division, um, putting it into stores,

uh, throughout, uh, Canada, putting it into naturopathic,

uh, doctors, our products that are life changing,

and, um, really just assisting people

to live a significantly better life, uh,

through proper nutrition.

Um, today in episode 1 62 of True Hope Cast,

we're gonna be talking about legislation.

Again, if you've been following us over the past year, year

and a half, you'll see

that we have really been discussing what's going on in

Canada and how the natural health community is at risk

of losing their products.

And any products that do remain in the marketplace, um,

may be subject to incredible price increases,

making it cost prohibitive for the average Canadian,

especially during an economic downturn.

Well, today we're gonna be discussing, once again,

more legislation that is incredibly egregious,

but beyond just the implications

that it will have on the natural health community

and your access to natural health products.

We're gonna be talking about the legislation.

We're gonna be talking about what you can do to prepare

and to hopefully undo the situation at hand

that the government has put into place.

And as such, we've got an incredible guest, uh, which many

of you know Sean Buckley.

And so I'll bring Sean Buckley on.

He's been a champion for health freedom, um,

over the last two decades

and has done phenomenal things in helping to ensure

that your rights

and access to natural ha health products are maintained.

So, without further ado, I'm gonna bring Sean Buckley on.

Hey, Sean. So how are you doing?

Well, I I, I'm doing good. I'm also enjoying the summer.

I actually took some time off.

I was just so burned out from all the NCI work

and N-H-P-P-A work.

I had to take some time off and it, uh, it was nice.

It was nice. You know, they say you need balance

and I needed to get a little bit of balance back,

You know, that, that's absolutely crucial.

Otherwise, we have a slow burnout.

And I found myself in that place, uh, too many times.

And regardless of the, the nutrients that we have

to support us through all of that, um,

you can only do too much or so much.

And, uh, mm-hmm. You know, working 10, 12 hour days

and, uh, neglecting the family

and your own personal time, um,

you, you end up paying for it.

So, I've learned that lesson.

And I even was able to squeeze in as well a week of vacation

with my family this summer, which was fantastic.

Went up at the mountains and did a lot of mountain biking

with the little kidlets and my wife, and it was just great.

Yeah, no, no, it, it's always nice to get out. So,

Mm-Hmm.

Alright, well, we were having a conversation, um,

about probably three weeks ago.

I, I venture, I guess. And there was some stuff that, in

that conversation that you were discussing with me that

was quite alarming.

And actually, um, I had heard nothing about

these particular issues, these concerns that should concern

every freedom loving individual out there.

And through that phone conversation, I was made aware

of things that had come into play a number of months back

that nobody else is raising the flag on.

And it sounds like you've connected some dots on this matter

to kind of see the big picture of what's going on

and what's being prepared, uh, in the,

in the future here for us.

But before jumping into that, um, let's,

let's quickly recap.

'cause we've had a number of conversations over the past

year where we've done podcasts, uh,

about Health Canada, about what they're doing.

Um, well recall that one of those was when Health Canada

false or used the false narrative surrounding the death

of my son, Ezekiel, to justify the regulations

that they're pushing on Canadians to limit their access

to natural health products.

Um, but let's lay the groundwork as

to what's gonna taking place since early 2023,

and then get to where we are today

and what these new, um, situations are, the,

the new legislation that's going

to benefit them in certain situations against

the Canadian public in removing their freedom.

So, okay. Now can

You kinda Leave,

Before I jump into that?

Can I, can I just address something that, that you raised?

So you were, you were citing the fact that Health Canada

was using Ezekiel as an example of basically the danger

of, of nps.

And, and you and I that are familiar with the facts,

just know that, that that is completely

fraudulent misrepresentation.

No, but Health Canada was grasping at straws and,

and citing some other examples too.

They're, I've been in this for 30 years

and for 30 years they've been pounding the table

and forcing us into a false narrative

and forcing parliament into a false narrative

and forcing the media into a false narrative

where we're even having a safety discussion.

Mm-Hmm. About nhp.

And I think it's important that we address

this with your audience.

So we're always talking, uh,

within this parameter of safety.

How do we manage safety?

How do we manage safety of natural health products?

And once you're in that discussion,

you're trapped in a lie

because, um, natural health products, the entire market,

so let's say there's 80,000, I'm just picking a figure,

80,000 products,

and there's a lot of products on the market.

All of them together fit within a category that,

you know, in the risk management world, you call de minimis

of less than one death per million per year.

Um, so you don't even worry about it.

Like, so let's take for example, lightning.

So on average in Canada, if my understanding is correct,

one outta 4 million Canadians get struck by

and dies from lightning every year in Canada.

Well, there's 40 million of us, so that's 10.

So every year, 10 Canadians are gonna get

killed by lightning.

Now, every year we can't point to a single death caused

by natural health products in a given year.

So any risk analysis person

actually just looking at the facts, would go,

you can't even compare the natural health product industry

to lightning because lightning is so much more dangerous.

Mm-Hmm. That it's not even fair to compare the two.

They're in different categories.

So did you hear, just hear what I said, audience,

so natural health products are so much safer than lightning

that it wouldn't even be fair

to compare the two risks sets of risks.

And that's what I mean by di minimus.

Because how many

of you would accept the government spending billions

and billions of dollars to set up a lightning directorate

and start restricting your, your freedoms

and, you know, increasing your cost of living

and engaging you in a narrative

and engaging the need media in a narrative

and engaging parliament in a narrative

where we're actually discussing how do we, how do we address

the safety concerns with lightning?

You'd say that's madness.

And yet what we're doing with NHP is even more mad.

And I don't even wanna talk about peanut butter

'cause peanut butter's so much more

dangerous than lightning.

Well, hey, no, because a large number of us compared

to lightning die of peanut butter each year

and a lot more are hospitalized and come close to death and,

and, you know, very traumatic

and life-threatening experiences.

And none of us would accept Health Canada, you know,

spending billions and billions of dollars

setting up whole new bureaucracies

and bringing in restrictive laws

and increasing our cost of living

to protect us against peanut butter.

And it's not that peanut butter doesn't create a risk,

but it's such a low risk that we're more than willing

to tolerate it without losing any freedom

or spending any more money than we have.

And so, even the fact that, that at any time, even the fact

that I have to raise this, what are we talking about?

Safety tells us that we've been completely captured

by a fraudulent narrative.

And when you find yourself

captured in a fraudulent narrative perpetrated

by your government, you know you're in trouble.

Well, and what's interesting about this is

ultimately at the end of the day, they're trying

to take the natural health products and,

and put 'em into a different category while deflecting from

the real risk that, um,

is facing Canadians when they are attempting

to take therapeutic products

that would correct different h health ailments.

And so when we're talking about the pharmaceuticals, let's,

let's just talk about risk here.

Let's talk about death.

There's over 10,000 Canadians that die every year

from taking their properly prescribed medications

as the doctor instructed them to do.

So over 10,000

Yeah. As directed.

Yeah. And then you have all your other issues

around the medical system, but we, we won't go down

that rabbit hole, but 10,000, over 10,000 in Canada,

over a hundred thousand in the US in North America alone.

I know in, in Canada, we don't have the largest cities,

you know, compared to what they consider a city in the us.

But really when we take a look at it, um,

every single year there's a good sized city in Canada,

what we would consider in Alberta,

a a good sized city is completely eradicated,

killed off from the proper

use if there's such a thing, the instructed use

of pharmaceutical medications.

And yet, where's the warning bells on that?

Where, where, where, where's the media on that, you know,

saying, Hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Right? Like, maybe take, take this into consideration

that you might not want to use pharmaceuticals

as your first line of choice because you just might die.

Well, this is, you know, it, it's actually worse than

what you're suggesting.

'cause you're just taking pharmaceutical drugs,

taking as directed.

I, I remember I was lecturing at a health

conference in Toronto.

I mean, this is probably 20 years ago,

the first time I met Professor Ron Law,

who was also lecturing.

And he is a risk, uh, a risk

analysis expert using government data.

And he was lecturing, you know,

using data from all western nations

and explaining to us that,

explaining to us that the three leading causes

of death in all western nations are all connected to the use

of, of pharmaceutical drugs.

And you've mentioned one of them.

So, um, but there's two others.

And, but if you were to, let's say, go to Statistics Canada,

the top 10, top leadings of causes of death,

actually the top three wouldn't be on there.

And they wouldn't in any western nation.

And it's all, you can get the data and, and crunch it,

but just the average citizen isn't gonna see

it the way it's presented.

Mm-Hmm. And, you know, they all have,

the common explanation is as well, you know,

there's just some ambiguity in

how we should be classifying these things,

except they all classify them the same

and have these categories so they know what's going on.

So it, the whole thing is a fraud.

And in fact, I remember another risk analysis

that a client had done, which showed that,

and it broke Canadians down into age groups of 10.

So, you know, zero to 10, 11 to 20.

And in every age group,

the most da your highest risk factor was going

to the medical doctor except for one Mm-Hmm.

I actually thought it was gonna be car accidents for,

you know, for several of them.

Um, but in every, you know, tenure age group except for one.

And so when I, who was it?

You know, was it, uh, professor Allen Castles in one

of his books, you know, pointed out

that every time the medical doctors go

and strike, the death rate goes down,

and then every time the strike ends, the death rate goes up.

Like apparently a hundred percent correlation. Yep.

So, and I, and I'm not here to knock medical doctors,

but the point you're making is, is that

chemical pharmaceuticals are so risky

that when we're talking natural health products, uh, our,

if we wanted good health policy,

like if we wanted good health outcomes,

our public policy should be, well, let's try everything

else other than chemical drugs first.

Mm-Hmm. But, but instead,

because we've had the drug model imposed on us,

which is a incredible fraud

because we've had the drug model itself imposed on us,

which is there to protect the chemical drugs.

And if you want, I'll explain to you your audience how

that works, because it, it's important to know,

even now when we're talking about, oh, drug

and drug policy, that,

that this is another fraud perpetrated on us,

and how the drug, the drug model works.

And just so you know, it came into force in Canada in the

1930s and every other western nation in the

1930s, it was coordinated.

Mm-Hmm. And the drug model has three parts, basically.

And the first part is, is you define drug so broadly

that drug includes anything regardless of what it is,

if it's used for a health purpose.

So if it's used to prevent illness or to treat illness.

So David, if I was to say to you, man,

you look dehydrated, take some water.

If you were in this room

and I, oh, you're dehydrated, have some water.

I mean, I would've broken so many federal laws.

It was crazy. 'cause by wa suggesting that

and actually giving you water for a therapeutic purpose

to treat dehydration.

It's a drug. It's a drug.

So, which is crazy.

And then the second part of the drug model,

so basically everything's a drug, even water.

And then you make it illegal to sell or make

or, you know, give a drug

unless the government has approved that drug.

So now it's illegal to use anything.

The drug model makes it illegal to use anything

for a health purpose unless it's approved

of by the government.

Now, that is a legal philosophical place.

A society should never go.

You're never gonna have good health outcomes

when you can't use something for health purpose

unless the government has approved it.

Now they're, now they have control over your body.

Now they have absolute control over your health policy.

And then the third nces, the third part of the drug model.

And, and remember, nothing happens

in government by accident.

And, and we've been in this for decades and decades

and decades and decades and decades, you know,

it's clear to me what's going on.

It's clear to everyone else in the drug field.

It takes you about 10, 15 years to figure it out.

And then when you see it, it's so clear. It's crazy.

So the third part of the drug model is, is

for serious health conditions,

you make the approval process so expensive.

So in Canada, we call it the new drug approval process.

You make it so expensive that only novel chemicals go

through the process for economic reasons.

Because, um, and let's use white willow bark as an example.

So white willow bark is a great painkiller,

and we've known this for centuries.

And then bear comes along

and goes, oh, with this one molecules one of the main,

it's not the only pain reducer in white willow,

but the main one, well, let's change it slightly

so that it's now a novel chemical.

Now we can get a patent.

And what a patent just means is,

is if you can patent something that you've created,

then nobody else can make it

or sell it without your permission.

And that allows you, then you have a monopoly.

You can charge a high price. And I use Viagra as an example.

'cause it's a fun one. When Viagra first got approved,

both in the United States

and Canada, like Pfizer was charging a fortune per pill.

And people were actually selling them off market,

like Pfizer kept the supply down to keep the prices high.

And even the mainstream media would have fun stories about

it because, you know, it was kind of a fun story.

And people paying a hundred bucks a pill for, you know,

to cure erectile dysfunction, um,

back when a hundred dollars would be like $500 today.

Right? Yep. So I mean it,

but then now that the patent has expired,

so Pfizer could charge these prices.

'cause nobody else could compete with them.

Nobody could make Viagra while they had this patent,

this intellectual property.

Right. Protection. But now that the patent's expired,

Viagra doesn't cost near as much because anyone can make it.

The, the generic drug is sildenafil

and there's a whole bunch of people make it now.

So, but Pfizer will go through this process

and serious drugs, really serious health conditions,

you know, some of them actually are serious,

but others are just money makers.

So mental health, you don't,

you don't go into the mental health field

unless you have a patent that can get through this process.

True. Hope has experience with that.

Um, arthritis another big money maker. Mm-Hmm.

Like even minor arthritis, you can't go anywhere near

that legally unless you go

through the new drug approval process.

Erectile dysfunction. We've already spoken about

cancer, heart disease.

So let's just talk about those.

Those are kind of the big five mm-Hmm.

So what it means is, is be

because it costs so much to get through this process.

And the last time I asked a drug approval expert

who was under oath, how much does it cost?

Like a billion dollars. You, you can do it for less,

you can do it for several hundred million

on a simple application.

But you know, for something like cancer

or heart disease, even your application fee is gonna be

roughly a quarter million dollars.

Like just your fee to Health Canada to assess it.

Like we're talking big money here, right? Mm-Hmm.

So unless you can have a monopoly, you won't go through.

So David, in the lifetime of your audience,

basically every single drug, I think with exception

of one drug, which was sponsored by government, every drug

that's gone through, been approved of

for serious health conditions has been a novel chemical

that had a patent.

Which is why if any one of your audience has a heart attack

or is diagnosed today with serious cancer

or serious arthritis, or even minor arthritis,

and you go to the hospital

or you go to your doctor, the only legal treatments

are chemicals that didn't exist when we even

came out with this policy.

Right? And the only treatments you will be offered

by the mainstream medical system

for serious health conditions are chemicals

that didn't exist when we came in,

when we created this drug policy.

Now think about that. Let's say we had no drug policy

and your audience was tasked with, okay, we'll come up

with a drug policy that will have good health outcomes.

Never in a million years would your audience come back

and say, well, we think the best way

to get good health outcomes is to make sure

that we can only treat serious illnesses with chemicals

that haven't even been invented yet.

They're gonna be novel. We don't even know what they are.

But the drug companies will invent them year after year.

And those are the, we'll make it so

that those are the only treatments that it's legal to use.

And we will actually hunt down and persecute

and destroy anyone who tries to compete

with these novel chemicals.

Now you're smiling 'cause it's so ridiculous.

But that's our life and death drug policy in Canada.

The reality is, it is illegal

to treat serious health conditions with anything

but a novel chemical.

And this is by design

because of the drug model, which is imposed on us not

for good health outcomes.

And what what's happening with this self-care framework is

they're moving the bar lower to moderate conditions.

And so they have to wipe out the NHP industry.

Right? Yeah.

The way that you articulate that so well in,

in characterizing that, uh,

really exposes the barbarism surrounding this.

I mean, we are operating like a bunch of barbarians in,

in this civilized society that we exist within when it comes

to drug policy

and the administration of what would be deemed

as therapeutics supposed to be correcting or,

or treating, uh, health ailments.

It is absolutely barbaric in the way

that you articulated that.

Uh, just really expose that in a way

that I've never, never heard before.

So thank you.

Well, people don't understand

that our drug laws aren't there for health outcomes.

I challenge anyone to read the Food and Drug Act

and all of the regulations.

And you tell me any, you tell me

where Health Canada is charged with protecting health

or getting good health outcomes, it's not there.

And it's not there because it's not supposed to be there.

That's not the purpose of our drug policy.

Now for political messaging, health Canada,

even the word Health Canada, I, I mean, I gag

because it's such, you know, an Orwellian term.

Mm-Hmm. Um, I mean, the whole thing is marketing so

that we'll accept this.

Like most people think the drug laws are there

to protect you are, are you kidding me?

We could spend a whole show on just

how even this drug approval process is an absolute fraud on

the Canadian public.

If you think a drug approved of

by Health Canada is either safe

or effective, you have a much different opinion than me.

And I've been an expert in this field for 30 years.

And you, you've represented a number of natural health

companies over the years that have come, uh,

into the cross hairs of Health Canada based on the fact

that in essence, they are competing

with the pharmaceutical industry in certain areas

that are incredibly profitable

for the pharmaceutical industry.

Is that, is that a fair representation?

Yeah. Um, so most

of the companies I represented,

and you know, there was probably a 10 year period

where I had every defense when Health Canada would charge

you criminally under the Food and Drug Act,

and you were a natural health product company.

Um, it was almost always within this big five that I've,

you know, of serious conditions that I've mentioned.

And the company was starting to get traction Mm-Hmm.

In the marketplace. So posed a huge

threat. True hope included.

Yeah. No, yeah. That's how we, we connected.

And I think that was in 2004 or 2003 that, that, you know,

Uh, all I know is it was a long, long time ago.

Now it doesn't feel like a long time.

Uh, you know, I still remember the first time I met Tony

and David, you know, at this kind of little freedom.

We like, no, I wouldn't freedom me.

It was, it was a group of companies that were, um,

under Health Canada's radar

and we're trying to figure out how to, um, how

to protect the people that relied on their products.

Like, that was the focus. So,

So you've got some in-depth knowledge as to

how this actually, actually, I, I, I would just, just to,

I mean, not not to puff you up or anything,

but, um, I don't think there's another person in Canada

that has the knowledge that you do

and the experience that you do in relation to

what you're talking about right now with drug policies

and with the fact that they, that Health Canada

and the powers that be, are attempting to remove

therapeutic natural health products

because you've been on the front lines defending companies,

um, to make sure that they could even maintain, uh,

existence in the marketplace in Canada.

And that Canadians would have access to those

natural health products

that would correct those health ailments outside of the

umbrella of the pharmaceutical drug chemical model.

Yeah. Well, you know, you actually have to be, um, dealing

with Health Canada regularly to start seeing it, right?

Like when you deal with

somebody, you get to know who they are.

And Health Canada is an organization, it's a legal person.

And, um, like even just using True Op as an example

when, when there was a criminal proceedings

because oh, you know, power Plus didn't have a license

and, you know, some other minor regulatory violations.

And just so your audience is aware, this is back

before the, the Natural Health Product regulations,

you couldn't get a license.

The whole industry was unlicensed.

So we literally did have 80,000 products on the market then,

and none of them were licensed.

And yet Empower Plus is being singled out

and would've been in Canada at the time,

the only natural health product

under criminal charges in court out of 80,000.

Only one is in court at the time.

And, um, well it's, it's staggering.

So, you know, health Canada starts

with telling true hope, will you stop?

But true Hope can't stop selling

because they've got like tens of thousands of people that,

you know, had been the worst of the worst in, in

and outta psych wards and voluntarily committed.

If they stop providing the product,

they know there's gonna be deaths.

So true Hope lets everyone know

what we know from North Canada file

because it was part of the disclosure.

You know, psychiatrists, I'm talking psychiatrists

and medical doctors were pleading with Health Canada both

by phone calls and letters saying, look it,

I've got this patient that your,

all your approved drugs don't work like they're gonna be

dead unless they can continue to access Empower.

Plus we have the patients themselves by letter or phone

and family members basically explaining,

we've tried all your approved drugs.

It's not basically experts

and people pleading for their lives.

Well, that didn't stop Health Canada.

No. So then, you know, then they,

then they raid True Hope

and they start turning the product away at the border.

Well, now we even have, we have such an explosion.

We have so many phone calls to the Minister of Health

and McClellan's office and Health Canada

because people are pleading for their lives.

Doctors are pleading for their patient's lives

that they create this one 800 crisis line.

And they, you know, market it as,

Hey, we're here to help you.

And there's professional counselors on the other end,

but we know from their internal emails, no, they were just,

they couldn't, their offices couldn't function

because of all these people pleading for their lives.

So as soon as you phoned

and said True open power,

plus they hit a button without asking your permission,

and off you go to this one 800 crisis line.

Well, there were professional

counselors and they took notes.

There's over 600 pages of people pleading for their lives.

Well, health Canada knows all of this.

They know they're hurting people.

The Canadian Mental Health Association is holding press

conferences every time there's a death

that they're aware of.

MPS are asking, you know, minister

of Health questions in courts.

It's no secret. People are dying.

And Health Canada doesn't care.

'cause it's not about health.

Remember, was it Miles Sau, you know, on the stand?

Basically, I asked him something like, you know,

if you had a document in front

of you saying your actions were

killing people, you'd continue.

And didn't he say yes?

Yep. Yeah. He, he,

because it wasn't part of the policy,

um, that that was added to it.

And, and that portion of the transcript

that you just about quoted verbatim, there

is actually found, uh, on Health Canada exposed.com.

It's an old site, hasn't been updated.

A lot of the pages don't work, but

the homepage is still intact.

And if you scroll right to the bottom, um,

and it's a short page, so you barely do any scrolling,

you see that that element of the

or portion of the transcript where you're asking him

that question and where he is answering, basically saying,

you know, highlighting the fact

that they have a complete disregard

for human life, which mm-Hmm.

Obviously is based on health.

So it, the, the name Health Canada is so antithetical

to what their, their actual ways of operating are.

It has nothing to do with the health

of Canadians whatsoever.

It is, is so backwards.

And we've seen that obviously in, uh,

with our own personal experience in what they did,

where they, they killed Canadians

and then they refuse to make any changes internally and,

and, uh, rectify the situation.

I mean, they were engaged in criminal activity clearly,

and yet they still try

to continue on today. Okay.

Right. But the point I was just making is

that has nothing to do with health.

And you, you can't know that until you're there.

And, and we still have to get to the juicy parts of this

Interview. Yeah. So let's,

let's, let's jump into real quick just

to give a kind of how we got to where we are today.

Um, so I'll, I'll, I'll preface this.

In October of 2022, we, our Health Canada reaches out to us

and they start their censorship again, which

that censorship really started back in October of 2000,

after the first study came out of the University

of Calgary showing that our products,

or that the Empire Plus was over three times more effective

in that small preliminary study,

then the standard medical treatments

that you would use for bipolar.

And so that's when Health Canada came in.

They shut down the study, um,

and they tried to suppress science from moving forward.

And then that's when all the trouble really began was

because a study emerged showing the power of Empower Plus.

And it was a fully independent study.

We had nothing to do with it

other than supplying the product.

And so now, health Canada in 2022,

they're resurrecting the censorship where they're saying,

Hey, you have this stuff on your website.

You have your 35

or the 35 medical journal

publications, uh, published on there.

Um, you've got testimonials.

You know, these are people sharing their real life

experience of getting better.

And you have some other content on there

that we don't approve of.

You need to remove it. And so,

in essence saying we can't have access,

or Canadians can't have access to that to make a decision as

to whether or not they want to take the Empire Plus

for a particular health condition.

And so we see that happen and we banter back and forth,

and finally, by May of 2023, we make the revisions.

We did so in a bit of a, an unorthodox way.

We just shared through video form why you can't have access

to the 35 Medical Journal

publications anymore, blah, blah, blah.

So we saw that they were doing something in 20 22, 20 23,

where all of a sudden they were becoming proactive in trying

to police the market

and suppress sound scientific information

and people's real life experience that would help

to influence other people to get well.

Now at that same time, something else has taking place

and all of a sudden things are erupting.

And you, we started to see these flyers popping out on, on,

at the tills and whatnot at, at these health food stores.

And the whole natural health community in Canada is kind

of starting to get on fire what took place in early 2023

and to, and we're gonna get to where we are now in 2024, um,

and how things aren't necessarily better,

but that there's some things to watch out for moving forward

and some action that needs to be taken.

Yeah, look, I mean, I think you're, you're talking about,

um, you know,

them sneaking into the federal budget bill in 2023,

some changes, but as part of the wider picture, I mean,

since 2017, health Canada has come out

with what's called a self-care framework

that they said they would impose,

and they, you know, published various timetables to do it.

They're behind on their ti their timetable.

But, um, so a lot of these flyers

or postcards in the health food stores are in connection

to the self-care framework, which is

bringing this drug model, um,

into the moderate health conditions, right?

So like we're, they have to decimate the NHP um,

community and, and the self-care framework's gonna do that.

Mm-Hmm. But as part of the self-Care framework, one

of the elements is to harmonize all of the penalties

and to give, and the powers

that Health Canada has over the truly dangerous

chemical pharmaceutical drugs.

So, you know, back in 2008, health Canada tried

to bring in powers

and penalties, um, on all drugs,

including natural health products.

And the citizens were built

because, you know, everyone knew, wait a second,

you can't have $5 million day fines on a naturopathic doctor

or a supplement company.

Like for Pfizer, that's pocket change.

That's like, that's an insultingly. Small fine, $5 million.

Right? Like, do they make that in an hour?

Do they make that in, does it take them two hours?

Like, or, or am I just being ridiculous

with even that amount of time?

Whereas, you know, a supplement company isn't gonna make

that in a decade, so they, you destroy them.

So it's just, it's just absolutely insane.

And then we've already had this safety discussion, how,

how can we even be talking about penalizing natural product

companies for safety violations when the real risk is

not promoting them?

Rather, you know, like, so even us having that discussion,

so $5,000 per offense, fines plus potential jail was plenty

of fire power against natural health product companies.

You know, plus you're in court anyway, and the cost there,

and they can apply for injunctions.

There's a whole bunch of things.

They have so much power if there actually is a risk, right?

Let, let's say, let's say somebody was adulterating a

product or, you know, did come up

with some strange combination, some extract that was

so potent that there was a problem.

Oh, well, okay, there's powers to deal with that, right?

It, it's e even under our criminal code, you know,

criminal negligence and like, there's,

there's no shortage of power.

So we all rebelled and if, and the government backed down,

and then in 2014 they bring these powers and penalties in,

but just for the chemical drugs.

And we,

I'd written a discussion papers probably still on the

N-H-P-P-A site, calling this a Trojan horse.

All they have to do is do a definition change.

And it applies to the natural health product.

Well, health Canada knew they couldn't

using the democratic process.

And I know we're not a democracy,

but, uh, we'll just play along for now,

at least the way our parliamentary system works is, is,

is if you're gonna make a change to the Food

and Drug Act, you introduce a bill saying,

I wanna make these changes to the Food and Drug Act.

And then parliament's focusing on that, uh,

on a bill about the Food and Drug Act.

And if it gets through second reading, it goes

to the Standing Committee of Health, which has expertise in,

in food and drug matters.

Mm-Hmm. And everyone has time to deal with it.

That's not the type of bill that has to be rushed through.

It's not emergency. Right.

But there is a bill type of bill that does get rushed

through every year, and that's our budget bill.

So, which is, you know, it can be as long as a phone book.

You're spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year

and you need to make program changes or set up programs,

and you do what's called a budget bill

to facilitate the spending

and create legal framework for your spending.

And those get rushed through every year. Right.

Because they have to.

And what Health Canada did was they snuck changes in the

Food to Drug Act into the budget bill

and built these, which has nothing to do,

nothing to do with health.

It goes to the finance committee, which has nothing to do

with health and it quickly.

And so before we know it, we have these

$5 million day fines now applied to naturopathic doctors

and supplement companies like True Hope,

which, you know, brings in, brings in tyranny.

And, and what I mean by that, David, is, is, is tyranny.

You just look it up in the, the dictionary.

It's not even meant to be a negative word.

It just means absolute discretion.

So a tyranny is where you have absolute discretion.

And we, but the word tyrant

and tyranny has become negative to us

because we've learned that if you give a person

or a bureaucracy absolute

discretion, bad things happen.

'cause power corrupts that's absolute power. Yep.

'cause absolute discretion is you can

do whatever you want. Right.

And, and, and as a result of that,

we've already seen the oppression that's taking place,

the silencing, where people are

concerned about using their voices.

Here, let's use True Hope as an example.

So Health Canada tells true hope

to stop selling and True Hope won't.

And so True Hope charge criminally and they go to court.

Well, the court said, we can't convict you. True.

'cause it was legally necessary and orally,

and it wasn't just myself that heard it

'cause reporters reported on it.

Mm-Hmm. The judge said

that more people would've died if True Hope had listened

to Health Canada and followed the law.

So the court was making a finding of fact that

Restrict Health Canada restricting the product, led

to deaths, and there would've been more deaths if True

Hope had not stood up.

Now, true hope could stand up back then

because they were facing $5,000 fines.

Right. So, you know, all the legal costs

and fines, even if they had lost, well,

if they'd lost Health Canada would've, you know,

shut the product out of the market.

So the, the whole goal was to, you know,

extinguish the product.

Mm-Hmm. But, you know, let's say,

let's say their goal was just to force them into compliance.

They could have survived.

But now with $5 million a day fines

Done, well, if you resist by the time that you get to court,

you got 365 different offenses per charge.

Like, and, and you, you can't withstand a single fine.

And so now, I mean, as a lawyer, I,

I don't wanna practice in this area anymore

because if a company comes to me

and says, look, we've got this product,

people's lives rely on it.

Um, well before, okay,

well you've got obligations under the criminal

code that supersede this.

You can't do things that are gonna cause death

or you're guilty of criminal negligence causing

death or bodily harm.

And you also have ethical, you know,

human being obligations.

So you have to withstand stand up.

Well, I, I, the product's disappearing now anyway.

'cause they can't withstand, so this is tyranny, right?

Like, I can't even advise people ethically to resist anymore

because you can't resist

because it, the penalties are too high.

When, when the government passes a law,

you never have full compliance.

And, and that's fine. It's just human nature.

There's always some outliers.

But you get majority compliance

by having penalties that sting, you know, like a wasp sting.

Right. You don't like it.

So you get stung a couple of times

and you're gonna stop going near the nest.

Right. You're gonna comply. Mm-Hmm.

But they're not meant to destroy you.

It's not like we're gonna sting people

that are gonna go in anaphylactic shock and die.

That's not the purpose of a penalty. Right.

And it's not just

You just on time on that.

Yeah. But it's,

it's not just in the area of food and drugs.

We're doing it in other areas.

We're bringing in penalties

that aren't meant to bring about compliance.

They're in to bring tyranny

where the government can just tell you whatever the heck

they want you to do.

And you have to do it 'cause you can't resist. Yeah.

Like, it, it, it has nothing to do with compliance anymore.

We're we, we're moving into a world

where the government is controlling us,

where we have no discretion but to comply.

Mm-Hmm. And in the area of food

and drugs, that's a very dangerous game to be in.

Absolutely. Absolutely. So we see this take place.

They sneak it through the budget bill in June of 2023.

Um, I believe you were the first to raise the alarm on that

because there was a lot

of issues taking place in the natural health community.

A lot of alarm bells going up, a lot of flags being risen,

but over much more minuscule issues, um, to the,

uh, unfortunately to the detriment of, of the whole movement

of, because you were, you were looking at the totality

of this and saying, look, no, there's some much

graver issues than just these, you know, licensing fees

that they're, that they're

proposing and all that type of stuff.

Um, so this takes place

and in June of 2023, my understanding is

that there's a bill, uh, a private member's bill

before Parliament that is looking to

undo Bill C 47. Is that correct?

Yeah. So, uh, MP Blaine Calkins, who is a conservative mp,

introduced Bill C3 68.

Yep. Which is a bill just basically to undo this,

to take us back to the way we were before.

And, um, and it's now

before the standing Committee of Health.

And when Parliament resumes later this month, then all

of a sudden, you know, this, that committee's going to have

to start looking at things.

And so now would be a really good time for your audience

to put pressure on the mps

and on the, the members of the Standing Committee of Health.

And you know, on under my name there, there's nhpa.org.

You go to that website, we've got campaigns, we've already,

you know, people through our portal have already sent almost

half a million letters to mps

to get support for that bill.

And if you've already gone through that portal

and sent a letter, do it again.

Like do it every week.

Like just keep it going and, you know, print them off

and send the paper once too,

because that, that speaks volumes when their mails getting

flooded like that, those postcards you're talking about.

We've, we've shipped out

to stores over 1.1 million of those now.

And that's because you people like your audience keep

picking them up from stores and sending them in

and like the address, everything's there.

You just have to fill in your name and address.

There's no postage required.

Like just keep doing it every chance you get.

You send your mp like you write down your MP's name

and um, you send it in

because some mps we got a picture from one mp,

they've got a whole closet filled with it.

They're actually finding it interesting.

'cause they've never gotten so much mail on a single issue.

And, and this is life and death.

Like you have to be engaged.

Yeah, absolutely.

Otherwise it may be life

and death in relation to the fact

that you develop a life threatening condition

and no longer do you have access to, um, therapeutics

that would correct that condition.

And so it, it, this, this is in essence, like you said,

it is a life and death situation.

Um, alright, so, um,

I mean that, that's phenomenal

that we have that bill moving forward.

Hopefully we can undo Bill C 47 mm-Hmm.

But let's fast forward to 2024.

We're talking about the budget bill.

The budget bill is getting rammed through super fast.

It's a very large bill.

Um, lots of room in there to hide all sorts of sneaky stuff.

Uh, my understanding is that you've analyzed some elements

or some areas of 2020 four's budget bill

or, uh, bill C uh, 69.

Yeah. So they, they basically have done it again, David.

So they've snuck in some pretty key changes

to the Food and Drug Act to our fundamental drug

and food laws.

And, you know, we're gonna, I'm gonna talk about the changes

and you know, your audience is gonna go,

what are you kidding me?

And they do it in the budget bill.

And there's no way if this was a standalone bill that

then everyone's focusing on, wait,

this is a health bill, here are the issues.

And it goes to the standing committee of health

and we all have time to deal with it.

It's not a budget bill being rushed through

that has nothing to do with health.

There's no way it would pass.

But as budget bills do, this is just rammed through

and shame on you liberals

and NDP MPS that voted for the budget bill.

Um, because, you know, I was spoken to speaking to an MP

who didn't vote for the budget bill

and that MP didn't even know this was in there.

Um, so here's a, you know, an MP at least,

I can't fault this MP for supporting the budget, um,

but didn't even know this was in there

because I mean, like I say, these budget bills are

so long, right.

And we are in a, we're in a parliamentary process where,

you know, most mps don't know most of the law

that they're voting yay or nay for.

Um, you know, how's that for representation?

Not that, you know, what you would want would make a

difference in our system anyway.

So, and David, these changes are significant.

And I have to say, you know,

like it's my job at the N-H-P-P-A to analyze stuff like this

and, and put it pen

to paper on a discussion paper to explain it to people.

And something really funny happened is, you know,

I'm dealing with the first one and I'm go

and I'm thinking, which is, you know,

the minister basically having the ability

to prohibit off-label use.

And I'll explain in a minute what that is. Mm-Hmm.

But I'm thinking, wow, this is like, this is huge.

This is a huge power.

And there's no, this isn't in the public domain at all.

Like nobody's saying the Minister

of health needs power here.

It's not an issue at all.

And for all of them we're going through and it's like, what?

These are sweeping changes.

Some of them, you, you cannot argue in any way

that it's in the public interest.

Like they're shocking. Some of these changes are shocking.

And, and they're coming outta the blue.

David and I, and I, I get to the end

and I have no idea what's going on.

Like, I actually, I remember sitting on my desk going,

I, I don't understand this.

Like, where are all these coming from?

And like, they're so significant. It's crazy.

But I was looking at them individually

and then the thought comes to me,

and I think it was, you know, guided

by the Holy Spirit says, no, no, no,

you're looking at them individually.

Look at them together as a package. They're all just one.

They're, they're for one thing.

And when I looked at them in the package, it's like, oh,

of course this is, if I was, if government, the government

of Canada came to me

and said, you know, we had problems with Covid,

how we managed covid.

You know, there were some people that were able

to behave a certain way we didn't like, people were able

to access drugs like Ivermectin in a way

that we didn't anticipate.

And oh, we've got liability here, here, here, here,

Mr. Buckley, will you draft us legislation to make it

so we're bulletproof next time and can't be sued and,

and can get a hundred percent compliance.

Okay. That's what we have in our federal budget bill.

Is it, you know, and I I have to say, you know,

for about two weeks I was, you know,

depressed thinking this is a signal

to me from the government of Canada that they're at least

anticipating another CO like pandemic

doesn't, it's coming,

but they're legally anticipating another

covid like pandemic.

So let me walk through what the changes are

and then explain how it's a shopping list

for another CO like pandemic.

And it's the only way it makes sense. Alright, sense.

So the first change is, is the Minister of Health now

can basically prohibit off-label use

of a drug by doctors.

And so what is off-label use?

I it's important for your audience to know.

So the federal government using its criminal law power says

impose this drug model on us where you, it's not legal

to sell a drug or use a drug

unless the government has granted

approval in the form of a license.

Mm-Hmm. Now, when they grant approval in the form

of a license, it's a very specific thing.

So let's say, um, Pfizer

has a new breast cancer drug

and they run a clinical trial using, you know, 25

to 30 year olds females on stage one breast cancer.

Well, health Canada will approve that for use on 25

to 30-year-old females with breast cancer.

Well, if you have a 30 5-year-old female with breast cancer

and the doctor decides to use that drug,

that's off-label use.

It's not approved for that. Mm-Hmm.

What if the doctor wants, what if it's the best treatment

for stage two and three breast cancer that's off-label use

a drug will be on the market for one condition

and doctors will learn through experience

that it actually works on another condition.

In fact that it may still be on the market solely

because doctors are using it

to effectively treat another condition

and doctors make their decisions on a per patient basis.

I have a patient in front of me.

What, what do I professionally think is the best

thing to do for this patient?

And if that's prescribed a drug for some condition

or age group that Health Canada hasn't approved of,

the doctor doesn't care

because that's provincial jurisdiction.

Health Canada has never had any say in

what the doctor can prescribe

for the patients health Canada's jurisdiction is

you can only have on the market drugs we approve

and yes, we approve them for specific conditions,

we can prevent the manufacturer from pushing

it for different conditions.

But we have no control over doctors

or other healthcare professionals.

Nutritionists, health, food store clerks.

I mean, let's say you've got a family member having bad

migraines and goes to the health food store

and somebody's well trained

and says, well you should be taking this, this type

of magnesium and these B vitamins.

Just things that come to my mind here.

Um, well that's off-label use because that magnesium

and those VB vitamins will not be approved

for migraines even though a medical doctor will tell you

to do that, let alone a store clerk.

Well, we actually see that all the time with the BMD

that are our bone health product.

The bone health market is already pretty like saturated.

The reason that this is continually selling is

that people are actually using it.

Um, women are using it for PMS and individuals are using it

because it promotes deeper sleep.

So it's actually selling, even though it's licensed

as a bone health product. Yeah.

Bone. So we're, we're explaining off, off-label use.

So now the Minister

of Health can step into off-label use it.

It's not an issue at all

unless we're talking about things like Ivermectin, like,

so remember Covid and, and I mean let's just use Ivermectin.

There were others like hydroxychloroquine and the like,

but there were a lot, there's really cogent evidence

that Ivermectin is a super good antiviral

and especially for COVID-19.

In fact it's, it's quite compelling.

I mean go look at the evidence of Dr.

Pierre Corey or you know, Dr.

Tess Lori at the Regina hearings

of the National Citizens Inquiry.

I mean, it's compelling evidence on

how effective Ivermectin is.

Um, and watching either

of those testimonies will be both compelling

and you'll be mad as can be it by the end of it.

Hmm. So now doctors were controlled David

because if a doctor was prescribing Ivermectin

or promoting Ivermectin, their colleges,

their professional colleges discipline them.

I mean, Dr. Charles Hoff is still under disciplinary

proceedings, for example.

And you know, like name

after name of doctors that have promoted ivermectin have,

you know, been professionally disciplined,

but non-doctors who don't have colleges,

they were a real problem for Health Canada.

So now the Minister of health with these changes

can prohibit the promotion

of off-label use.

So you got a podcaster who has, you know, Dr.

Pierre Cor on talking about how Ivermectin will save lives

and my gosh, use it

because we can, we can save hundreds of thousands of lives

and, and suffering.

Well now that podcaster can be gone

after with $5 million a day.

Fine. So every day that that episode is up

and posted online is a separate offense subject

to a separate $5 million day fine.

Well now, now the Minister

of Health can finally have censorship

of truthful health information that goes against

how they wanna manage a COVID-19 like pandemic.

So it's, it's not just the individual who is disseminating

or sharing that information verbally, um,

Promoting the information.

It's the individual who's hosting or, or giving them.

Absolutely. In fact, there's a separate section

that you know, for greater clarity.

I mean this includes the promotion of use.

It's, it's the store clerk saying take BMD

for sleep or take magnesium

and these B vitamins for migraines.

Yep. Any, like, imagine so Minister

of Health can come up with an order saying

for natural health products it is illegal

and now you're subject to these $5 million a day fines

to promote any off-label use.

Well now you've got censorship

and then, then all they do is send Health Canada.

And I won't even say what they do in case they do it,

but I mean it's, okay.

So let's just get back to what we're talking about.

Okay? So we have the first issue that you identify in the

Second issue, veterinary drugs.

So remember people were accessing

Ivermectin veterinary Ivermectin,

Right Now the Minister of Health can put in whatever

procedures they, he

or she wants to prevent humans from accessing veterinary

drugs for human use.

Well this, this isn't a, a public issue.

I'm not turning on CBC

and going, oh my gosh,

humans are accessing this veterinary drug

and that veterinary drug, you know,

um, get your teeth bombed.

Now for those of you that use it, um,

but like literally, I mean if you don't have a,

like all animals now right down to your chickens have

to be registered with the government as part

of this total control.

So I mean, if you're not showing the registration

of your cow or sheep that you want ivermectin for,

you're not getting it once this is in place.

Okay? So, okay, so that's closing another door.

And you see this, other than managing a pandemic,

how is this relevant to us at all?

Okay, so one thing, one second, let's recap.

So the most recent budget bill in 2024. Yeah.

You're identifying that they're going after off-label use.

So you can't be promoting Ivermectin for COVID-19

or for anything else for that matter. What?

Yeah. So the minister now has had the power

to do this, hasn't done it yet,

Liable up to $5 million fines per day offense.

Okay? Yeah, absolutely.

Because now that applies

to everything due the 2023 budget, right?

So not just chemical pharmaceuticals,

but natural health products.

Second issue is

that veterinary drugs will not be accessible

by the common man unless he is,

Except for veterinary use.

So they can put in procedures in place to ensure

that they're only sold to people

who can verify which animal they're going to.

And did we see that in, in the past couple years

that there was an issue surrounding people accessing only

With people accessing Ivermectin.

Alright. Right. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

Now these next ones are shocking.

So the Minister of health now has the power

to exempt both food and drugs,

but I'll just talk about drugs.

Yep. From some of the most fundamental

red line in the sand safety provisions in our drug law,

there are three lines you do not cross in the drug world

because there's no way, there's no circumstance

where this is in the public interest.

And the first is, you know,

you cannot in Canada market a drug fraudulently.

You can't lie to the Canadian public about a drug.

And that's a red line in the safety line, in the sand.

The second red line safety in the stand is you cannot

sell to Canadians, drugs that are adulterated

with dangerous substances.

And, and these are no-brainers, aren't they? Right.

Like on what planet?

On what planet Is it okay to sell a drug to Canadians

that are, is adulterated with dangerous substances?

Yeah. It's never Okay. You never cross that line.

And the third line you never cross is allowing drugs

to be sold that were manufactured under unsanitary

manufacturing practices.

Right. You never allow that to happen

because it's just too dangerous.

And those aren't regulations.

Those are in our Food and Drug Act.

It's, you know, black

and white law, fundamental lies in the lines, in the sand

that you do not cross.

Well, hey, if we cross those lines as a manufacturer here,

uh, we'd be done, like done right away. So shut down.

So now under this new budget, so the Fed, the Minister

of Health can exempt a drug

from fraud from being fraudulently marketed,

from being sold if it's adulterated

with dangerous substances

and which is manufactured under unsafe

manufacturing conditions.

Hmm. Now, again, in the public sphere, this is just,

have you seen anywhere, oh my gosh.

Um, we need a drug, um, to be marketed

to us fraudulently, um, that's adulterated

with a dangerous substance

and which is manufactured under unsanitary manufacturing

conditions because it's impossible

to tell us the truth, I guess.

And we can't manufacture it without the dangerous substances

and we can't manufacture it, um, in a sanitary way.

I mean, this is, this is ridiculous, isn't it?

Like, how are we even, how are we even

having this conversation?

Well, it's shocking. It is.

So in essence, just for, for the, the benefit of, of the,

the audience, just to clarify,

the pharmaceutical industry is being given a get out

of jail free card in essence here, where

They now Oh, oh, the government.

Yes. The pharmaceutical industry, but the government also.

So 'cause and here's how it applies to Covid

and is now,

so let's just look at the last pandemic,

the COVID-19 pandemic.

So for those of your audience who don't know, um,

health Canada marketed the COVID-19 vaccines as safe

and effective and of the highest quality.

And in fact, I haven't checked recently,

but for every time I have checked, like

for every COVID-19 vaccine approved by Health Canada,

health Canada has created a webpage

for them on Health Canada site.

Hmm. So if, like, if you go to the Pfizer vaccine, any one

of them, the top sentence will be all covid

to 19 vaccines approved up by Health Canada have been proven

to be safe, effective, and of the highest quality.

Yeah. And so, so people can be forgiven for believing

that the covid to 19 vaccines have been proven

to Health Canada to be safe

and have been proven to Health Canada to be effective

and have been proven to Health Canada

to be of the highest quality.

And you can be forgiven for thinking about that

because of the political messaging from Health Canada.

Right. It's fraudulent. But yet,

but hang on, is the truth is, well, normally you do have

to prove to Health Canada vaccines proven to be safe,

effective, and of the highest quality.

And you have to go through what's called C 0.0 8.001

of our drug regulations, which require that Mm-Hmm.

But the COVID-19 drugs were exempted from having to go

through that regular process.

And they were given this other process

where you didn't have to prove safety.

And, and I'll just segue, you didn't even have

to give Health Canada your safety data

to get a license to let your audience

that sink in with your audience.

So not only did you not have to prove safety, but

because you didn't have to prove safety,

you didn't even have to give Health Canada the safety data

you had as long

as you gave Health Canada notice.

Well, when you'll get them the known safety data,

so your known safety data could show that everyone dies.

That's your known safety data.

You don't even have to provide that to Health Canada.

As long as you let Health Canada know, you know, well,

you next September, maybe mid month,

we'll try and get that to you.

'cause you know, we're pretty busy nowadays

and our photocopier keeps jamming. So,

So if somebody, so, so if one of these manufacturers

discovered because it was just so astronomical that a number

of their participants in the studies were stroking out, all

of a sudden they were, they were ending up, well

Now we're going down a rabbit hole. But anyway,

Or, or that there resolve sudden an astronomical amount

of miscarriages well above, like, like significantly.

And when I say significant, I'm talking like thousands of

percent above what the norm would be for miscarriages.

They didn't have to disclose that information

and say, you know what, this isn't actually

No, no, they didn't.

So, so as I say, under the normal process, you have

to prove safety and you have to prove efficacy.

And then once you have the safety profile

and once you have the efficacy profile, then

and only then do you do a risk benefit analysis,

do the benefits outweigh the risks?

But you can't determine whether the benefits outweigh the

risks unless you know the benefits, the efficacy profile.

Mm-Hmm. And you know, the risks, the safety profile.

So unless risks and benefits are proven, you,

you can't even do a risk benefit analysis now.

But for the COVID-19 vaccines, you didn't have

to prove safety and you didn't have to prove efficacy

and what the test is, and I I I can probably

quote it to you word for word.

And if it's not word for word, maybe I'll be off one word,

but the, the test is

the minister Now the minister's Health Canada.

So Health Canada has, well, I'll say minister,

the Minister has sufficient evidence

to support the conclusion.

Now, I'll stop there 'cause we're already in trouble

because now we're in a subjective test.

Mm-Hmm. Let's, let's use Pfizer as an example.

So let's say Pfizer has to prove what follows that

it should read the Minister as sufficient evidence

to conclude, meaning it's the minister's conclusion

you prove to Health Canada objectively what follows.

So it should read, the Minister has sufficient evidence

to conclude, bang, what what has to be proven.

But it doesn't, it says the minister has sufficient evidence

to support the conclusion, not the minister's conclusion.

Mm-Hmm. So now Pfizer just has to make an argument

about what follows.

Mm-Hmm. We're not proving anything, David,

we're not proving anything of what follows.

We are arguing. The Minister has sufficient evidence

to support the conclusion.

The minister can believe

that this is the worst idea possible.

It's dangerous, it doesn't work,

and it's not in the public interest.

But if Pfizer can present sufficient evidence

to support the conclusion of what follows, the minister has

to grant the license.

It's mandatory, the test is written, the minister must

grant a license if this test is met.

So by law that Health Canada is granting a license.

So the minister has sufficient evidence

to support the conclusion.

And here's the test that the benefits of the drug

outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties

concerning the benefits and risks

and the urgent public health emergency

presented by COVID-19.

The word safety's not mentioned.

The word efficacy isn't mentioned.

You don't have to prove it. It's safe

and you don't have to prove it works.

Mm-Hmm. And even though there's risk benefit language in

there, you, you can't know the risks

and benefits without proving safety and efficacy

and uncertainties built into it.

Having regard to the uncertainties

concerning the benefits and risks.

And the, the, the Health Canada employee

who signed off on the vaccine, Celia Aranco,

she prepared an affidavit in the Brian Eckford federal court

proceedings where basically she's making it clear,

this is the test we use

for the two vaccines she's talking about in

that affidavit in the test.

And basically based on on mean data, two months.

Like you, you can't know safety

and efficacy for two months anyway.

Even if you had to prove it, but you didn't. Right.

So, but we're just talking about changes in the budget

where the Minister of Health can allow fraud.

And I'm just pointing out, the government itself could be

liable for fraud for the COVID-19 vaccines,

let alone pharmaceutical companies.

But the government's own messaging, the government,

you know, if we, if in my opinion,

if our justice legal system was doing its job,

the government and a whole bunch

of government employees would be facing charges right now

for fraudulent representations

concerning the COVID-19 vaccines to the public.

And we'd have a large number

of people facing criminal charges

and, you know, likely life imprisonment

for what's happened, in my opinion.

Okay. So, so now see, let's say we do this again

and we approve a whole bunch of vaccines.

Well, you're not worried about proving safety and efficacy

'cause you're gonna exempt them again.

And, and there's another thing that follows.

So you don't even have to worry about that.

Um, but you're liable

for fraudulent marketing if you're telling the public again,

they're safe and effective and of the highest quality.

Well, the COVID-19 vaccines were adulterated

with dangerous substances.

Mm-Hmm mm-Hmm. Well, the government knows that.

So let's just ignore the pharmaceutical companies. Mm-Hmm.

Well, Canada's aware of this adulteration,

and they're basically keep telling the public

that it's safe, they could be liable for this.

Right. And they knew that it was manufactured,

especially at the beginning under unsa unsanitary

manufacturing practices, that the European agency

was all over that at the beginning of the pandemic.

And then that issue went away.

So in essence, there's a lot of people

that could be in big trouble right now, government

and in, in relation to the pharmaceutical industry.

And so in the budget,

Well, if, if, if we had a,

if we had a change in public sentiment where, you know,

people wanted accountability

for what's happened, but we Right.

Have an honest discussion about that in the public domain.

Right. So if justice was actually taking place the way

that it should based on, on,

Well, you know, just justice is a broad term.

I what I'm saying is, is if, if there was a political will

to hold people to account Mm-Hmm.

For what happened is, in my opinion, the amount of fraud

by Health Canada and many government officials was such

that I would expect to see some very serious

criminal fraud proceedings.

So now with this new budget bill,

if something like this were to take place in the future,

they criminal liability.

Yeah. And I mean, it's kind of hidden, eh,

so it'll be the Minister of Grant, an order exempting,

you know, this vaccine

and any, any dealings

with it from part one of the Food and Drug Act.

So they're not spelling out fraud

adulteration on unsafe manufacturing practices.

Like somebody just reading it won't even know

what the minister's talking about.

Right. But that's what we're talking about.

So let's go on,

because I mean, we're just talking about how this seems

to be a shopping list.

Mm-Hmm. And sure, it, it also, you,

you would exempt the pharmaceutical companies from

liability for these things.

But I was thinking more of the government like

that this was a shopping list for the government

to protect itself and grease the wheels going forward.

Well, it might upset the public

What we just spoke about.

How, wait a second, these COVID nineteens did vaccines

didn't not be proven safe

and effective in the highest quality

because the minister had a different test

and used a different test.

Why even get into that nonsense, David, next time round?

Why even approve the vaccines yourself?

Why have your own internal experts in Canada

approve a vaccine when we can have a foreign

entity approve it?

And foreign entity is defined so broadly?

Well, it could include the regulatory body

of any foreign nation,

but it could also include, um, bodies that are not part

of a government like the World Health Organization.

Mm. So, you know, let's say we have a, a covid like pandemic

and Botswana approves the vaccine as safe and effective

and of the highest, highest quality.

Well, why would Health Canada bother

to have a pharmaceutical company have to go

through the trouble of satisfying health Canada's experts

and relying on Canada's expertise

to see if this is indeed a good thing

for the Canadian public?

Why wouldn't we rely on Botswana?

Who has found that it was proven to be,

and I'm not trying to knock Botswana, right.

But, but the point is, is you could have a country

where you haven't looked into, you know, the level

of scrutiny or anything that they've applied

and which experts they've applied,

and is there undue influence or anything like that?

I'm just picking a name, so I'm not Right. I'm not, yeah.

So my, my apologies if I've found, I'm just trying

to make a point that some other country

or the World Health Organization, which has strong ties

to pharmaceutical interests Mm-Hmm.

And is, you know, not publicly accountable to anyone

could approve a vaccine.

And under these changes, well the minister can just say, oh,

don't even apply to us.

We're gonna approve it. Or the minister

can approve a vaccine

or any other drug based on portions

of documents provided to a foreign entity.

Hmm. Well, isn't that scary?

So you mean if somebody drug company applies to Botswana

and they don't approve it, you could ask Botswana

to provide you with half of the submission

and you could approve it and you're not

looking at the whole thing.

Like really that's possible now in Canada. Yes. Yes.

That is possible. Yes. That's the law now.

And how is, how are any of these changes, David, how is,

how are any of these changes in the interests

of the average Canadian in any way?

And I'm at a loss, maybe I'm just a slow learner.

Well, not maybe, and I don't, you know, I'm just not seeing,

um, the value of this yet.

But I I am just, I couldn't, it was like, what,

where are these changes coming from?

And then when I realized, oh, this is a shopping list

for the next pandemic, because there's no other,

there's no other explanation for it.

You know, the, the, the Minister

of Health Health Canada was saying, we need these changes.

We need these changes. And the public reason was,

and there's a video of the Minister of Health saying this.

So it's very easy to verify, um, we need these changes

to protect vulnerable teenagers,

so our vulnerable youth from flavored vaping products

and, um, and pouches.

So hold on now, now the interest, none

of these changes protect that.

And we already have power after power

after power that would enable the minister

to protect vulnerable teenagers from

flavored vaping products.

Right. So when you're told one reason for something,

so wait a second, I need these powers

to protect teenagers from flavored vaping products.

I already have a long list of powers to do that.

And the powers I'm telling you I need won't actually

enable me to do that.

Now you're in the situation where, like, in my opinion,

it's a total fraud.

Right? So we're being told we need this

for one purpose, which we don't.

And so, just wait a second.

So let's, let's just, maybe I'm not thinking,

maybe I'm not thinking this through, David, I,

it just dawned on me I might wrong

because if teenagers are using flavored

vaping products like nicotine products, yeah.

Maybe we do need drugs fraudulently marketed to Canadians

that have dangerous substances in them

and that were manufactured under unsafe

manufacturing conditions.

Because if we gave those to the teenagers,

then they might not be using flavored vaping products.

Like, I don't know, like, maybe I'm just not seeing,

So hold on, hold on.

I, I need clarity here. So the Minister of Health

uses the example of teenagers

with vaping products in relation to the four. That's

Why we need these changes in the budget bill

That we're round through the budget bill

that we're hidden from the public.

Yeah. Okay. So, so hold on.

So I'm gonna go through the list here.

So we've got, number one is off-label use.

Yes. Does that have anything to do with vaping?

Well, no, it doesn't.

'cause Nico, you know, vaping products aren't a drug.

They're not used for health purposes. Okay.

They're purely recreational and, you know,

and the minister, the minister has a whole bunch

of different powers under the act and regulations already.

Mm-Hmm. That the minister,

the minister could put restrictions on further restrictions

on the marketing of vaping products to youth

or just pass standalone, you know, amend

legislation specifically designed to do that.

Okay. So you got, so number one doesn't apply, uh, of

We already can't legally sell it to them.

Okay. So now

what about the restriction of veterinary drugs?

Is, is vaping typically found within veterinary drugs?

No, I'm not aware of, um, veterinary drug supply houses

selling flavored vaping products for the animals.

Um, but

I'm sure there's a market there.

They, maybe they're

anticipating somebody's gonna tap into the market.

I don't know. Um, okay, so number two doesn't count either.

Number three, adulteration fraud

and unsanitary conditions is the vaping,

Does that affect No, it, I mean,

and that, isn't it ridiculous, right? So,

And then, And then creating foreign entities that,

you know, they can approve drugs

and then well, they were approved here,

or we can rely on portions of their submissions.

None of it applies to the stated purpose.

Okay. So we, we, we have this, this theme

that just keeps on emerging.

I mean, last year at this time, we see that, uh,

before the standing committee in health, uh, that Dr.

Sharma from, uh, health Canada uses the death

of my son Ezekiel, to say,

this is why we need these regulations

for natural health products to restrict

people's access to 'em.

Um, which you and I know,

and you've spent, uh, a lot of time in the courtroom

and a lot of time outside of the courtroom

studying the medical files on the, on the death of my son.

And we know

that there's nothing further from the truth on this matter

that it was a complete fraudulent representation

of the death of my son, outside of what reality was

to say this is why, um,

natural health products should be restricted.

So they were lying about it. Right.

They were using a false example

that would incite emotion in people,

which obviously clouds their judgment to say, yeah, you know

what, let's get behind this.

Are we seeing the same thing then in relation to this?

What appears to be a, a fraudulent example

of vaping?

And that's why we need these four changes about, um,

off-label use being restricted,

veterinary drugs being restricted, their access to humans,

unless you have animals that you can prove that, you know,

that medication's gonna be used for them.

Mm-Hmm. And then yeah, the adulteration fraud. Yeah. I,

I mean we're, we're really having a discussion

where I think your audience is already with us.

It's ridiculous. Right? I hope so.

So, um, you know, and,

and like I said, I was trying to make the point,

even at the beginning of the interview, like,

if we're even having a dialogue within parameters of

how we can safely access natural health products, we're,

we're already in a lie.

We're in this, we're, we're,

we're in this reality distortion where

that shouldn't be the conversation at all.

Um, you know, so the fact that the Minister

of Health is using an explanation that can't true

to justify regulatory changes that are significant,

that shouldn't be in a budget bill in itself as an affront

to the parliamentary process.

Um, it's just alarm barrel after alarm bell.

And then we've walked through all those changes.

Well, which one is, is possibly in the public interest.

Right? Like, it, it's just, it's not like,

I'm sorry if we found ourselves in a situation where,

you know, there was some disease

that really was killing people horribly.

And okay, somebody came up with this drug

that could be working and we were being truthful about the

information, but it was highly risky

and it is adulterated with this and that.

Well, okay, just change the law then.

I mean, parliament will do three readings in a day. Right.

If you're being truthful and,

and we're being upfront no fraud.

And then people can make up their own minds.

Like, that's the funny thing is, is, is you don't even have

to discount a real emergency.

Will Canada's always been able to respond

to real emergencies in a timely way?

Are you, are you telling me Parliament won't sit and meet

and have three readings on something that has

to happen right now 'cause it's an emergency?

Of course they will. Right?

So why are we sneaking into

a budget bill fundamental changes, which clearly

are anticipating a potential covid like pandemic.

It doesn't mean it's happening,

but they're legally anticipating.

Mm-Hmm. Well,

you know, um, that,

that's problematic in my mind.

I think, you know,

I think you've made a significant discovery here in them

laying the groundwork for,

and the foundation for how the next pandemic.

And and when I say pandemic,

and I'm gonna emphasize that, is with

what you're laying out, clearly there's already a

plan. They're already,

But, but David, you know, you used the word pandemic and,

and all of a sudden you're identifying yourself

with a specific part of the covid narrative.

I, it doesn't matter where you fall,

fell on the covid narrative, whether, you know, you accepted

what the mainstream media was telling you

or whether you rejected all of that.

Mm-Hmm. Shouldn't we all be concerned about the minister

of health stepping into provincial jurisdiction interfering

with doctor patient relationship for whether

that's a medical doctor or naturopath

or even, like I say, your store clerk who's just like,

this is mainstream information that any doctor will recite,

you know, using magnesium

and some B vitamins as an example for migraines.

Like, it's just main, like nobody's gonna argue

with the truth of that.

Mm-Hmm. Like, shouldn't anyone be concerned with that?

Or, you know, allowing adulteration or fraud

or unsafe manufacturing practices

or approval of, you know, drugs based on portions

of submissions given to a foreign entity.

Like how is, it doesn't even, it doesn't matter

where you were the last time.

Mm-Hmm. And,

and this being done in an unparliamentary way

where like nobody even has the chance to look at it like tho

Yeah. There's no objection.

We don't, we don't, we don't have

to relive the last pandemic regardless of where you were.

This is, this is just kind of like common sense.

Well, how's this good for me and my family?

How's this good for the, you know, the parliamentary system

that, that I have to rely on to have some protection

for myself and my family?

Like, these are the questions.

We don't, we don't even have to go anywhere.

'cause it doesn't matter where you are on

what I call the covid conversation.

Mm-Hmm. You should be concerned about this.

Yeah. There's, there's no upside.

So if there is no pandemic moving

forward, this isn't good.

What, what, what what they've just slipped

through, if there No, but

It's not pandemic specific and Right.

And it, and it, it like the ability to prevent the promotion

of off-label use either by medical people or professionals

or, or just the public.

Um, now you can have, now you can have censorship Mm-Hmm.

Of truthful health information, um,

under really tyrannical conditions

where nobody can even risk sharing the information.

'cause you're absolutely destroyed.

And I mean, that in itself is a problem.

As I say, you always have to have a system where,

where some outliers can resist and rebel

and not be completely destroyed.

Stung, stung like a was several times to,

to try and get 'em to comply.

Yep. But not, not destroy,

because that's actually how we learn and grow as a society

because somebody sees a better way

or sees something different.

Well, they're always attacked at first.

But, you know, we come, it's right down

to doctors washing their hands before surgery.

I mean, people were professionally ridiculed

and, you know, excluded.

And this is ridiculous

because it, it wasn't the way we thought.

Right. And,

but now we're thankful of those people who were punished.

But if they couldn't, if we,

they couldn't even get their message out.

'cause they're just totally destroyed. Mm-Hmm.

You know, it, it's just not good.

You have to allow for a certain amount of dissent as a,

as a matter of public policy

because it's how society evolves.

And so, you know, it, it's a problem,

a legal philosophical problem with these

fines that are too large.

So they're too small for the pharmaceutical industry.

The chemical pharmaceutical industry. Yep.

And they're just too ridiculous

for the non-pharmaceutical industry as as

to bring in a state of tyranny and

and complete non percent, we, we

Couldn't afford it.

Yeah. We, we wouldn't be able

to afford those types of fines.

It would destroy us. It wouldn't be a matter of,

of compliance, like you said before.

It would just destroy us overnight. Okay.

So, so just to recap on Bill C 69, the budget bill that went

through this past summer, earlier summer, um,

that's contained these four elements that

if there is no pandemic, it's bad.

If there is a pandemic, then it's perfect.

It would fit in perfect with Mm-Hmm.

How it would roll out and make it even more, um, tyrannical

than the previous pandemic that we just experienced.

So either way, either way you slice it.

This is not good in relation to

what they just put through. Yeah.

And it has nothing To do with vaping.

No. And, and we need,

we need your audience to take action.

So like, like I say,

beside my name is nhpa.org, we have a camp.

We're, we're gonna, we've got several campaigns going

'cause we're supporting Bill C3 68,

which is gonna be a really hot issue like now.

'cause parliament's resuming Mm-Hmm. Um, shortly.

So we need you to be, you know, participating in

that campaign and not just once do the,

do the letters weekly and print them out

and mail them weekly and,

and get the postcards at your health food store on the

self-care framework and keep sending them in.

And then we're gonna be having campaigns about this bill C

69 mm-Hmm.

Like, we think we need a private members bill to undo this.

Um, but we need letters to, you know, the Minister of Health

and the Prime Minister and your mp.

Like we, we will have campaigns.

So if you go to nhpa.org,

there'll be a sub way you can subscribe, give us your email.

Um, there you go. Thank you.

And so we don't send out emails often.

Maybe once a week, maybe like, so we're not gonna flood you.

So where you're annoyed and we'll need to unsubscribe,

but it's really the only way that we can No,

no, but you know what I'm talking about.

I know exactly what you're talking about.

I, I meant I end up unsubscribing all the time

'cause I get flooded and it's just Mm-Hmm.

You know, it's takes too much time.

We don't do that to you,

but it's the only way we can let you know

really what's going on.

Unless you're gonna follow us, you know,

on social media and that.

But we actually want to train everyone to do email

because of things like the online Harms act.

I see it as the first step for them to actually be able

to prevent, um, some of the forms

of communications we otherwise rely on.

We think people need to get in the habit of like,

so every website that, you know,

you're active on social media,

you should start posting your current events

and all your stuff on a separate page

and teacher people to start going there in case mass

emails become illegal.

So, um, I mean, the government knows

how we communicate Mm-Hmm.

And there's, there's clearly positioning us to prevent.

And so we, we need to be able to change people's behavior

to, 'cause it's gonna be harder for them

to justify people going to a specific website

and seeing what's new, so to speak.

But, um, no, it's a brave new world.

Indeed, indeed, indeed.

And, uh, we need to have good, clear plans of action in how

to navigate through this and, uh, to help keep it at bay

and, and hopefully restore the liberty

and freedom that, uh, that we've, uh, come

to enjoy in our life lifetimes.

And so, um,

I deeply appreciate what you're doing there, Sean.

Uh, you are a man of action

and I love how you are always able to, um, provide a clear

and concise plan of action as found on your website

and, uh, done so much better than any anybody else

that I'm aware of that's out there that have kind

of clouded the matters in relation to access

to natural health products and, and our freedoms there.

And so, um, everybody who's listening, yes, please go onto

nhpa.org, um, with on, on that website,

you will see those clear plans of action.

You'll see the discussion papers that will provide clarity

as to what the issue actually is

and what it means to you as Canadians.

Uh, share it with your friends, your family,

get it out there so

that people understand what's actually going on in Canada

before it's too late.

Because it's always harder

to restore your freedoms when they're lost than

to preserve your freedoms while you still have them.

So, uh, thank you so much, Sean.

Is there anything else that you want to cover here

before we drop off?

Well, I, I did want your audience to be aware, um,

'cause another, another organization I'm involved

with is the National Citizens Inquiry.

Mm-Hmm. And, um, they're having another set

of hearings in Vancouver on October 17th,

18th and 19th.

And the theme is a little different.

So the theme is not dealing with COVID

although, you know, there could be covid elements there.

But the theme, it's basically asking the question is,

are our children safe in Canada?

And, you know, that could take many forms.

It could take medical, it could take legal, it could take,

you know, health, it could take economics.

I mean, it, it could take areas I haven't even thought of.

Like the idea was,

is just broadly speaking is are our children safe in Canada

and we wanna know both where they are safe

and where they are not safe.

Like the NH or the NCI is always just looking

for what's the truth.

So that question could be answered, you know, well like here

and here and here is where we're doing things really good

and here and here and here is where we can have improvement.

Because the focus always is, is then on coming up with

positive recommendations on how to do things better.

And you know, what better topic in trying to figure out,

well, how can we be doing things better than in the area

of protecting children?

So, um, whether, so actually if,

if you're a wi, if you think you could be a witness

or you're aware of somebody

who perhaps the NCI should be contacting

as potential witnesses, go to the witness page, um,

you know, there's lay witness and expert.

If, even if it's not you, you can just say, Hey,

well there's this person, but please try

and dig out the contact particulars

and then give us an explanation as

to why you think they would be a good witness.

Um, and then the NCI also still is seeking commissioners.

They wanna have a pool of commissioners so

that they could have different hearings running on different

topics at the same time.

And, um, my understanding is, is they'd like

to have a few more candidates just to have a bigger pool

that they can draw on if for no other reason

that they found, uh, with the last couple

of hearings there's been scheduling problems with, you know,

some of the commissioners that are already approved.

So yeah, so very excited about

what the NCI is doing in moving forward there.

And it's important. You see,

you've got the website up there, national

Citizens inquiry ca I always have to say.ca for Canada

'cause there's actually a group that is pretending

to be the National Citizens Inquiry and they've got the.com,

but they're not us and they're actually just

trying to confuse people.

So now I have to say National Data citizens inquiry.ca

for Canada, you so that people remember, um, no, no,

there's, but it happens, you know, it, there's

influential expert after Influential expert.

I mean, it's just crazy the efforts out there

to duplicate them, to confuse and other groups.

So it's a sign that the National Citizen

Inquiry has arrived at.

I'll take it as a badge of honor,

but it means I have to clarify when I,

I send people to the website.

Absolutely. Well appreciate that.

And yeah, that, I mean we're, I don't think, uh,

we're foreign to the, the issues out there of, of all these,

this, um, I dunno what you'd call 'em,

but anyways, the trolls, if you will, that, uh,

that are there to sideline and, and to confuse the message

and, and, uh, anyways, controlled opposition, um, as well

as just pharmaceutical trolls if you will.

But, um, so, okay,

so National Citizens inquiry.ca you'll find the information

on there and uh, you can become a witness as well.

Alright, well Sean, thank you so much.

I really appreciate you coming on today.

Um, it's been an absolute pleasure.

Uh, thank you for clarifying in really great detail as to

what has come about in the most recent budget bill and how,

or what that means

for us in essence in our everyday lives right now

and what it could mean in the event of another Planned de.

So mm-Hmm. Um, thank you so much. Appreciate that.

And to take action, go to nhpa.org

and that is nhpa.org right there.

So thank you very much

and thank you everybody for tuning in today.

And may you take action

and help maintain freedoms for your children

and grandchildren to come.

And, uh, at minimum, regardless of how things go,

at least you can say that you took a stand

as you're communicating this to your, your, uh,

your children in, in times to come.

So thank you so much for coming on, Sean. Thank you. Thanks

For having me, David.

You're welcome. Okay.

Blessings to you all and we will see you again in another

future episode of True Hope Cast.