Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

Business

Justice Centre launches new petition: Keep cash legal and accessible. Stop Bill C-2

Published on

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree speaks to Bill C-2 (Screenshot from CBC video)

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has launched a petition calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to strike the criminalization of cash payments of $10,000 or more from Bill C-2 and to introduce legislation protecting the right of Canadians to use cash of any amount for legal transactions.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree introduced Bill C-2, or the Strong Borders Act, in the House of Commons on June 3, 2025. According to a Government of Canada statement, Bill C-2 will equip law enforcement with tools to secure borders and to combat crime, the drug trade, and money laundering.

Buried deep within the Bill, however, are provisions that would make it a criminal offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash payments of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a series of related transactions.

Bill C-2 at page 59 

 

Justice Centre President John Carpay warns that the criminalization of cash transactions threatens the privacy, freedom of expression, and autonomy of all Canadians. When cash transactions are criminalized, governments, banks, and law enforcement can track and interfere with legitimate purchases and donations.

“We must not criminalize everyday Canadians for using physical currency. Once $10,000 is criminalized, it will be all too easy for future governments to lower the threshold to $5,000, then $1,000, and eventually nothing.”

Bill C-2 is just one point in a concerning anti-cash trend in Canada.

Quebec’s controversial Bill 54, passed into law in March 2024, allows police to assume that any person carrying $2,000 or more in cash is connected to criminal activity. Officers can seize the cash, and citizens must prove their innocence to get the cash back.

“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny,” continued Mr. Carpay. “Cash protects citizens from surveillance by government and banks, credit card companies, and other corporations. In a free society, violating the right of law-abiding citizens to use cash is not the answer to money laundering or the drug trade.” 

Signers of the petition call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to strike the criminalization of cash payments from Bill C-2.

Signers of the petition also call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to introduce legislation that protects Canadians’ right to use cash of any amount for legal transactions.

The petition is now live and open for signatures here.

Continue Reading

Business

Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Robert Jones

Durov, who was detained in France in 2024, believes governments are seeking to dismantle personal freedoms.

Tucker Carlson has interviewed Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who remains under judicial restrictions in France nearly a year after a surprise arrest  left him in solitary confinement for four days — without contact with his family, legal clarity, or access to his phone.

Durov, a Russian-born tech executive now based in Dubai, had arrived in Paris for a short tourist visit. Upon landing, he was arrested and accused of complicity in crimes committed by Telegram users — despite no evidence of personal wrongdoing and no prior contact from French authorities on the matter.

In the interview, Durov said Telegram has always complied with valid legal requests for IP addresses and other data, but that France never submitted any such requests — unlike other EU states.

Telegram has surpassed a billion users and over $500 million in profit without selling user data, and has notably refused to create government “backdoors” to its encryption. That refusal, Durov believes, may have triggered the incident.

READ: Arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov signals an increasing threat to digital freedom

French prosecutors issued public statements, an unusual move, at the time of his arrest, fueling speculation that the move was meant to send a message.

At present, Durov remains under “judicial supervision,” which limits his movement and business operations.

Carlson noted the irony of Durov’s situating by calling to mind that he was not arrested by Russian President Vladimir Putin but rather a Western democracy.

Former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev has said that Durov should have stayed in Russia, and that he was mistaken in thinking that he would not have to cooperate with foreign security services.

“In the US,” he commented, “you have a process that allows the government to actually force any engineer in any tech company to implement a backdoor and not tell anyone about it.”

READ: Does anyone believe Emmanuel Macron’s claim that Pavel Durov’s arrest was not political?

Durov also pointed to a recent French bill — which was ultimately defeated in the National Assembly — that would have required platforms to break encryptions on demand. A similar EU proposal is now under discussion, he noted.

Despite the persecution, Durov remains committed to Telegram’s model. “We monetize in ways that are consistent with our values,” he told Carlson. “We monetized without violating privacy.”

There is no clear timeline for a resolution of Durov’s case, which has raised serious questions about digital privacy, online freedom, and the limits of compliance for tech companies in the 21st century.

Continue Reading

Trending

X