Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Great Reset

The WHO Pandemic Treaty could strip Canada of its ability to make its own health decisions

Published

6 minute read

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Cosmos Voutsinos

Don’t let Ottawa sign away our sovereignty to the WHO, placing power in the hands of unelected global officials

U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent call for Canada to become the 51st state rightly triggered national outrage. Yet while many were offended by his
provocative remarks, a more real and insidious assault on our sovereignty is unfolding in Geneva, where the World Health Organization (WHO)
Pandemic Treaty threatens to shift power from democratic nations to unelected global bureaucrats.

The Treaty, under negotiation, is aimed at strengthening global health responses to future pandemics. While proponents argue it will improve global preparedness, critics warn it will undermine national sovereignty, giving the WHO the power to impose sweeping health measures—lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and travel restrictions—without consultation or approval from elected governments. The treaty empowers the WHO director-general to declare a global health emergency, effectively bypassing national decision-making and subjecting countries to externally imposed mandates.

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), established by the WHO to draft a new international pandemic agreement, concluded its 13th meeting on April 16. The final proposed treaty will be presented for consideration and adoption at the 78th World Health Assembly, scheduled to begin on May 19.

While global cooperation on public health is essential, Canada’s health decisions should remain in Canadian hands. The treaty gives the WHO significant authority to mandate health responses, potentially overriding local decisions made by Canadian experts and governments. This could mean that Canada’s ability to make pandemic decisions based on local context and need could be compromised by a centralized, unelected body, which Canadians never voted to give power to.

This is not just a health care issue—it is a fundamental challenge to democratic governance. The treaty lays the groundwork for digital health passes and surveillance systems that could weaponize personal health data, as we saw during the trucker protests in Ottawa. Do Canadians want a future where personal freedoms are tied to health status and tracked globally?

There are also serious financial implications. The treaty introduces a “Pathogen Access and Benet Sharing System” with undefined costs, potentially saddling Canada with an ongoing financial burden to fund global health initiatives. Earlier drafts proposed that countries contribute five per cent of their health budgets, a clause that has been removed but replaced with new, opaque financial obligations that could lead to billions in taxpayer dollars being diverted to the UN.

The United States has already initiated its withdrawal from the WHO, raising important questions about how Canada will coordinate cross-border policies and maintain its trading relationship with our largest neighbour during future health crises.

The WHO is not accountable to Canadian voters. It has no direct responsibility to our Parliament or provincial health authorities. It has a poor track record, failing to declare COVID-19 a pandemic in time, hesitating to challenge China’s handling of the virus, and offering shifting guidance that undermined public trust. Why should Canadians accept its authority without direct oversight?

Worse, Parliament will not be sitting during the critical window when the treaty will be presented and potentially signed. According to the House of Commons Sitting Calendar, Canadian Parliament is not scheduled to sit until May 26, 2025,  which is after the World Health Assembly concludes. This means decisions could be made behind closed doors with little public debate or political consequence.

The treaty’s implications go far beyond health and set a dangerous precedent that in the next crisis, Canadians may not have a say in how their government responds.

International cooperation should not come at the expense of our freedom and sovereignty. The WHO can offer advice, coordination, and resources but it should not dictate our national response. Canada’s government must reject this treaty, ensuring that any related commitments are brought before Parliament for full debate and approval.

Anything less would betray the trust Canadians place in their leaders. This is not just about public health—it’s about protecting our democratic rights, our sovereignty, and our freedom.

Cosmos Voutsinos is a retired engineer who has published multiple scientific papers that have garnered a total of 96 citations. He earned his Bachelor of Applied Science (BASc) at the University of Waterloo and his Master of Engineering (M.Eng) degree from McMaster University.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta bill would protect freedom of expression for doctors, nurses, other professionals

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Peterson’s law,’ named for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law that will set “clear expectations” for professional regulatory bodies to respect freedom of speech on social media and online for doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals.

The new law, named “Peterson’s law” after Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was canceled by his regulatory body, was introduced Thursday by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“Professionals should never fear losing their license or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Smith said in a press release sent to media and LifeSiteNews.

“Alberta’s government is restoring fairness and neutrality so regulators focus on competence and ethics, not policing beliefs. Every Albertan has the right to speak freely without ideological enforcement or intimidation, and this legislation makes that protection real.”

The law, known as Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, will “set clear expectations for professional regulatory bodies to ensure professionals’ right to free expression is protected.”

According to the government, the new law will “Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction.”

It will also restrict mandatory training “unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Bill 13, once it becomes law, which is all but guaranteed as Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) holds a majority, will also “create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson has been embattled with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) after it  mandated he undergo social media “training” to keep his license following posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Trudeau and LGBT activists.

Early this year, LifeSiteNews reported that the CPO had selected Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

The Alberta government directly referenced Peterson’s (who is from Alberta originally) plight with the CPO, noting “the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence.”

“Similar cases involving nurses, engineers and other professionals revealed a growing pattern: individuals facing investigations, penalties or compulsory ideological training for off-duty expressive conduct. These incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards.”

Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery said regarding Bill 13 that the new law makes that protection of professionals “real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard.”

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.” 

Continue Reading

Digital ID

Roblox to Mandate Facial and ID Verification

Published on

logo

By

The platform’s age checks are part of a bigger push to create online spaces policed by biometrics.

The rollout begins this week as an optional process and will become compulsory in December in countries including Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, reaching the United States and other regions by early 2026.
The company says these steps are meant to make its vast online world safer for younger audiences, restricting how players of different ages can interact inside user-created “Experiences.”
To take part in chat features, users must now verify their age either by scanning a government-issued ID or recording a short facial video through Persona, an outside verification company.
Conversations are limited to others in the same or adjacent age groups unless users connect through “Trusted Connections,” which verifies they have a real-world relationship.
Roblox says the goal is to limit unsafe interactions and hopes the model will become “a new industry standard.”
While promoted as a safety improvement, this model also signals a move toward identity-linked participation in online spaces.
Digital ID verification effectively removes the anonymity that has long been part of internet culture.
It ties access to personal credentials, leaving fewer opportunities for users to interact without surrendering identifiable data.
The same technologies now appearing on entertainment platforms are increasingly being discussed by US policymakers as potential requirements for accessing social media, adult content, or even general-purpose platforms.
Several US states have already passed or proposed laws mandating age verification or digital ID checks for online activity, a trend that privacy advocates warn could erode personal freedom and create databases of sensitive personal information.
According to Roblox, “information uploaded to Persona is retained for a period of 30 days” before deletion.
Persona’s privacy policy indicates that it may collect extensive information, including device identifiers, geolocation data, and records from brokers and public sources.
This wide net of data collection extends well beyond what is required to confirm age, deepening concerns about how biometric and ID data could be reused or shared.
The company has not specified exact rollout dates for all markets but expects global enforcement to be completed within a year.
This makes Roblox the first major online platform to require facial age checks for chat participation.
The move comes as Roblox faces ongoing lawsuits and public pressure related to reports of grooming and child exploitation on the platform.
On the same day the company revealed its latest update, advocacy groups UltraViolet and ParentsTogether Action hosted an online protest, submitting a petition signed by 10,000 parents and grandparents calling for stronger child safety rules.
Roblox also introduced a new Safety Center, described as “a dedicated resource for parents and caregivers that provides clear guidance and tools to help them make informed decisions, set up Parental Controls, and support their child’s online experience.”
Still, the underlying trade-off remains significant. Roblox’s “Facial Media Capture Privacy Notice” confirms that it may conduct “other facial media processing” for “safety, assurance, or feature-specific purposes,” though the company says “Roblox does not use such facial media to identify you personally.”
Yet by normalizing ID scans and biometric checks, the company moves closer to a model of online life where anonymity is the exception rather than the rule, a change that could permanently alter how people experience privacy in digital environments.
Continue Reading

Trending

X