Many of our natural health practitioners currently make compounded remedies for us. Compounding is a process in which a practitioner makes a specific remedy for the patient. There was a time when most remedies in certain traditions were compounded. For example, when you went to a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner, there would be rows of bottled herbs for the practitioner to use to make your remedy.

Compounding is still widespread, being used by many healers such as Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners, herbalists, homeopaths, and naturopaths. But, if Health Canada has its way, compounding will become a thing of the past.

Health Canada has published a new policy which is designed to dramatically reduce compounding.

Health Canada does not have jurisdiction over compounding. This is because Health Canada is a branch of the federal government, but it is provincial governments that regulate how medical practitioners practice, and this includes compounding. When the Natural Health Product Regulations (NHP Regulations) were passed, Parliament made it clear that the Regulations were not to affect the ability of health care practitioners to compound. The Regulatory Impact Statement stated:

• Health care practitioners (for example, pharmacists, Traditional Chinese Medicine [TCM] practitioners, herbalists, naturopathic doctors) who compound products based on the needs of a patient are not included within the manufacturer definition. The regulations are not aimed at regulating the practice of complementary and alternative health care practitioners or the practice of traditional Aboriginal medicine.

To ensure that Health Canada did not interfere with compounding, the NHP Regulations were written to permit compounding if two conditions were met. These conditions are that:

1. the ingredient being used to compound is a natural health product, that is a natural ingredient, and

2. the ingredient is used for compounding.

These two requirements are very simple and clear. As long as the ingredient is a natural ingredient used for compounding, Health Canada has no jurisdiction.

Although Health Canada has no jurisdiction over compounding, and although the law is clear, Health Canada has been interfering with compounding for years. This usually is done by interfering with the importation of compounding ingredients at the border. Health Canada will refuse entry based on illegal factors such as the ingredient is not in its natural form, or is not packaged the way Health Canada wants it to be. As a lawyer I have watched many practitioner clients lose the ability to compound due to illegal and arbitrary Health Canada interference.

Feds Move to Outlaw Compounding

Now Health Canada is making things much worse. Remember that there are really no legal requirements restricting compounding. As long as the ingredient is a natural health product being used for compounding, Health Canada has no right to interfere.

In a clear effort to restrict compounding, Health Canada’s new policy creates conditions that do not exist in our regulations. In other words, Health Canada is illegally creating requirements that do not exist.

For example, Health Canada is imposing conditions which will prevent compounding if there is a licensed product on the market similar to the compounded product, or which could be used instead of the compounded product. There are roughly 120,000 licensed NHPs in Canada. In almost every instance where a practitioner is compounding there will be a similar product on the market. These conditions effectively outlaw compounding.

Health Canada is imposing labelling requirements to make compounding more onerous. These labelling requirements will be used by Health Canada to inspect practitioners’ offices for violations. This will require inspection of patient files to ensure compliance. Health Canada is illegally inserting itself into the practice of natural medicine, and will also be violating doctor-patient confidentiality.

Health Canada is imposing finished product testing requirements to ensure the herbs are “free of preservatives, dyes and chemical allergens”. This will make compounding uneconomic.

Health Canada is also requiring that compounded products are “in a palatable flavoured dosage form”. This is not a condition for any of the 120,000 licensed NHPs on the market. Now practitioners will be required to add something like juice crystals to a herbal tea blend, to ensure it is palatable and flavoured. This is absurd and insulting to both the public, and to the medical professionals.

A compounded product can no longer be in its original form, so for example, a practitioner can no longer decide to give you a herbal tea with only one herb. A second herb must be added even if you do not need it. Similarly, compounding is no longer allowed unless there are significant modifications.

A herbalist can no longer give you a single ingredient herbal tea where all you need to do is add hot water. These particular requirements will force medical practitioners to add a herb or two into your product so that it still qualifies as compounding. This is senseless interference by Health Canada into the practice of medicine.

Health Canada inspectors are not trained in medicine. Nor do they know the needs of any specific patient. But now, with this new policy, they can interfere with medical decisions made by medical practitioners. This is dangerous.

To add insult to injury, all of this is illegal. Bureaucracies like Health Canada are not allowed to impose conditions that don’t exist in the law. That is illegal. Remember the only legal requirements for compounding are that the ingredient is natural and that it is used for compounding. All of these new conditions are illegal.

These illegal conditions will be imposed upon practitioners with rigour. Health Canada will demand full compliance with these illegal conditions. So we have the keeper of the law – which insists the rest of us comply with the law – deciding to break the law themselves.

And of course it is those Canadians who rely on compounded products who will suffer.

The Natural Health Products Protection Association has sent submissions about the new policy to Health Canada. Anyone wanting a more detailed analysis can read the paper at https://nhppa.org/discussion-papers/.

Thanks for reading and sharing this newsletter.

Shawn Buckley

Resources:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/public-involvement-consultations/natural-health-products/compounding-raw-materials-policy.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/natural-health-products/legislation-guidelines/guidance-documents/compounding-policy/policy-statement.html

Shawn Buckley, LLB, is a lawyer who has been conducting legal advocacy for natural health products (NHPs) for 30 years, and the president and founder of the Natural Health Product Protection Association (NHPPA). Subscribe to this publication or visit https://nhppa.org to help support our work.

Canadian Law is clear that the Covid-19 vaccines were not proven to be safe or effective.

The relentless messaging during Covid that the vaccines were proven to be safe and effective was political messaging aimed at manipulating the population to be vaccinated. This political messaging is in direct conflict with published Canadian Law.

So either Canadian Law is wrong, or the political messaging that the vaccines were proven to be safe and effective is wrong.

The Allison Inquiry has reproduced the law governing the approval of the Covid-19 vaccines. The law reveals the following.

The Allison Inquiry has assembled as exhibits the Canadian Law that applied to the approval of the Covid-19 vaccines. This appears on the Allison Inquiry Rule 25 page as follows.

The Application to admit evidence concerning the Drug Test used for the Covid-19 vaccines, available on the webpage as exhibit R25-A, explains the law. Exhibits 25-2 to 25-6 are copies of the laws governing the approval of the Covid-19 vaccines. Exhibit 25-7 is a Health Canada policy document.

The law is as clear. It would benefit all of us to read, and to understand, the law that applied to a medical intervention that we are still not free to openly discuss.

The Allison Inquiry will be holding four days of hearing on Parliament Hill on September 8-11. Canadians injured by Covid-19 vaccines will be called to testify before Members of Parliament.

Canadians injured by the Covid-19 vaccines are encouraged to apply to be witnesses. Those that are not chosen to testify in person can have their experiences included as part of the written record of the Inquiry.

The Allison Inquiry will be introducing further exhibits with will be of interest to all Canadians. To be alerted about future exhibits, subscribe to the Allison Inquiry Newsletter at the bottom of the homepage, and follow the Allison Inquiry on social media.

And follow me here on Substack, as I will continue to post about Allison Inquiry exhibits.

Shawn Buckley

We are taught from childhood that Canada is governed by the rule of law. It is one of the foundational myths of our political identity, the idea that no person and no government is above the law, that our rights are protected by an independent judiciary, and that the Constitution stands as the supreme governing document of the nation. After decades of practicing constitutional law and going up against the government in court, I can tell you with confidence that this is, in most of the ways that matter, an illusion.

Let me be precise about what I mean. The rule of law functions reasonably well for minor disputes between private citizens. If your neighbor damages your fence, you have a legal system that will, eventually and expensively, resolve that. But the rule of law as a check on government power, as a protection of your constitutional rights against the state, is largely theater. And the theater is maintained deliberately, because a population that believes it has legal recourse is a population that does not demand change.

Start with the Constitution itself. Section 52 of the Constitution Act of 1982 states clearly that the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law inconsistent with the Constitution is of no force or effect. That sounds powerful. It sounds like a guarantee. But consider what happens when a citizen tries to enforce it. You will face a Department of Justice that deploys teams of lawyers, specialists in constitutional litigation with unlimited resources, whose institutional purpose is to ensure that courts do not limit the government’s ability to encroach upon your rights. You, as a private citizen, will spend years in litigation, exhaust your savings, and face the very real possibility that even if you win, the government will appeal, delay, and find another mechanism to achieve the same end. The process itself becomes a punishment for trying to ensure the rule of law.

This is not a flaw in the system. It is a feature. When the government controls the Department of Justice, directs the attorney general, and funds the litigation against you with your own tax dollars, the rule of law becomes a one-sided instrument. The government uses the law as a weapon against citizens while simultaneously claiming that the existence of courts proves we live under the rule of law. These are not the same thing.

The Barry Neufeld case illustrates this with painful clarity. Neufeld was a school trustee and a probation officer with over thirty years of expertise working with sex offenders. In his professional capacity, he was hearing directly from sex offenders that the SOGI curriculum being implemented in schools had effectively done the grooming work for them. Children who previously had no knowledge of sexual acts, and therefore could not be easily manipulated by sexual predators, were now being educated about those acts in school, making the predatory process dramatically easier. Neufeld raised these concerns in his capacity as a school trustee, which is precisely what school trustees were elected to do.

He was fined $750,000 by the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

To put that in perspective, you can negligently cause someone to become a quadriplegic and be unlikely to face a civil judgment of that magnitude. The fine was not proportionate to any harm caused. It was designed to crush Barry Neufeld to send a message to others. No school trustee watching that outcome will raise a politically inconvenient question again. No doctor watching what happened to physicians who questioned the public health narrative during the pandemic will speak out again. No police officer who has seen colleagues destroyed for investigating the wrong things will step forward again. The message is not subtle. Dissent from the approved narrative will cost you everything.

This is not the rule of law. This is the use of legal mechanisms to enforce political conformity. The distinction matters enormously.

The deeper structural problem is that the attorney general, who is supposed to be the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law, swears allegiance to the King, not to the Constitution. The Department of Justice, which is supposed to uphold the supreme law of the land, is directed by a minister who serves at the pleasure of a government that has every incentive to expand its own power and every resource to do so. When the government directs the police, when the government controls the prosecution, and when the government funds the litigation against citizens challenging its authority, the independence that the rule of law requires simply does not exist.

There is an Arab proverb that justice delayed is justice denied. Our legal system, particularly in constitutional matters, routinely takes years. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. It requires expertise that most Canadians cannot afford to access. And at the end of that process, even a successful outcome can be appealed, relitigated, or legislated around. The financial and emotional destruction visited upon people who challenge the government through legal channels is so severe and so consistent that it functions as a deterrent to anyone considering doing so.

What we have is a system that maintains the appearance of legal protection while ensuring that meaningful legal protection against government overreach is practically inaccessible to ordinary Canadians. The courts exist. The Constitution exists. The Charter exists. But the gap between their existence and their practical enforceability is where the illusion lives.

The first step toward anything better is to stop mistaking the existence of legal institutions for the existence of justice. They are not the same thing, and confusing them has cost Canadians dearly.

What comes next depends on whether enough courageous Canadians are willing to stop outsourcing responsibility, speak honestly about what they see, and support the people still willing to stand up for truth, accountability, and genuine freedom in this country.

Thank you for supporting this publication, for taking the time to read to engage with us for supporting our work at https://www. nhppa.org

Shawn Buckley

The most important thing any of us can have is sovereignty over our own body. We are the only ones who experience our suffering when injured or sick. Because suffering is deeply personal, we are the ones who should have the right to decide how to prevent suffering, and how to address suffering. In short, we should have the right to decide what happens to our body.

To understand how you are losing the right to decide what happens to your body, it is helpful to think about who owns your body.

Ownership is simply a word we use to describe who has the right to decide what does or does not happen to something. For example, if you rent a house, you cannot move walls. You don’t have that right of ownership, the person who owns the house has that right.

Slavery helps us to understand body ownership. Slavery is the condition where, either through force or economic circumstances, somebody’s right to make decisions over their own body is transferred to an owner. That’s why slaves are bought and sold. It’s an exercise of ownership.

Because slaves do not have ownership over their own bodies, they do not get to decide what happens to their bodies. The slave owner gets to decide what happens to their bodies.

The government is currently taking ownership over your body. The government is ensuring that you do not get to decide how to prevent illness and how to treat illness. This is being done, by restricting your access to treatment options the government does not want you to have access to. This is also being done by keeping you in the dark about remedies that are available. If you don’t know that you do not have to suffer and die using the treatments the government wants you to take, you don’t have any other option. You have lost the ability to choose. You have lost ownership of your body.

I want to tell you about Karen Peters. Karen was suffering terribly with rheumatoid arthritis. Her doctor told her it was incurable, progressive, and that she would end up in a wheelchair and it would kill her. Her option was to slow the progression with chemical drugs, including a chemotherapy drug called methotrexate. For a full year Karen was injected weekly with this chemotherapy drug. For three or four days of every week she was so sick she was wishing she was dead. The only option Karen was given by the government medical system was to suffer and die.

After about a year, a friend convinced Karen to see a naturopathic doctor who had also been a medical doctor. That doctor cured her with natural remedies. She is no longer on any drugs. She is no longer suffering. She is no longer facing a wheelchair and death. And that naturopathic doctor told her plainly that if she had stayed on the methotrexate, it would have given her cancer.

I shared Karen’s story on Parliament Hill when we were dropping the Health Charter Petitions off to MP Blaine Calkins. We were packing up after that event and a woman named Nelda came up to me. Nelda was weeping. She said, you told my story. She had rheumatoid arthritis. They put her on methotrexate. But she lost her breasts to cancer. She was traumatized by the experience. She was traumatized by not having a choice. Nelda had lost ownership over her body to the government.

Karen and Nelda are not isolated examples. During the Health Charter Tour we heard from Canadians suffering with a wide range of illnesses they were told were incurable. They suffered without hope until they were cured with natural remedies.

How many Canadians are suffering without hope because they don’t know about any options except for the treatments the government wants them to access? One is too many.

Here is how the censorship works. Everything used to prevent or recover from illness is classified as a drug. You cannot legally sell even a vital nutrient, even vitamin C, without Health Canada’s permission in the form of a license. And once you have that license, the only thing you are allowed to say about your product is what Health Canada has approved. It’s called the label claim.

So for example, if a drug company gets an anti-depressant approved, all they can legally share with you about the drug is that it is an anti-depressant. Censorship of all other truthful health information prevents you from exercising ownership over your body, it prevents you from making meaningful treatment decisions.

For example, I was in a Federal Court case involving Health Canada. One of Health Canada’s experts was a psychiatrist who runs a company to get psychiatric drugs approved by Health Canada. Under oath this psychiatrist started complaining to me about how hard it was to get new anti-depressants approved by Health Canada. He has to give Health Canada two double blind clinical trials showing that the drug works better than the sugar pill. He explained that to get those two clinical trials he has to give to Health Canada, he runs eight clinical trials. The other six clinical trials could be inconclusive. They could show the sugar pill worked better than the drug. They could show the drug worked better than the sugar pill but the safety signals were inconvenient. They could be a combination of the above. Here is the kicker - once the drug is approved it is illegal for the drug company to share the six failed clinical trials with you. Remember all they can legally say is “anti-depressant”. Similarly, reports of deaths and adverse events made to the drug company cannot be shared with you. That is health information that goes beyond the label claim.

According to Professor Allan Cassels who spoke at the World’s Greatest Health Show, the third leading cause of death in Canada is antidepressant drugs.

Professor Allan Cassel’s Presentation

There is an Alberta company called Truehope that developed what is likely the best treatment in the world for bipolar disorder using vitamins and minerals. It also produces remarkable results for ADHD and major depressive disorder. There are over thirty published peer reviewed journal publications on their product EMPowerplus. All of this research has been funded by governments around the world. I live in Alberta. The Alberta Government funded a double blind clinical trial at Calgary Children’s Hospital. It is illegal for Truehope to share with you government funded peer-reviewed research published in medical journals. All Truehope can share with you is the label claim, which is something like - supports mental health and well being.

Every drug approved for a serious health condition in the lifetime of everyone reading this, except for one, had a patent when it was approved. That means the only legal treatments for serious health conditions are surgery or chemical drugs. And the only way we can access those drugs is through government funded health care. Which means by definition, government funded health care is the marketing and distribution arm of the pharmaceutical chemical drug complex.

When you are faced with a serious health crisis and you cannot make an informed decision based on the truth, somebody else has manipulated you into making the decision they want you to make. That is how ownership over your body has been taken from you. Not through force. Through censorship.

This is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of sickness and health. Your ability to make meaningful health decisions, you ability to exercise ownership over your body, has been taken away.

It is time for you to take control over your body back. It is time for you to regain ownership of your body.

If you’d like to support our work please visit nhppa.org or hit the option for a paid subscription to this newsletter, it helps us a lot.

Shawn Buckley

There is a conversation that has been forbidden for Canadians to have. I didn’t realize how desperate Canada is to have the conversation until I got involved with the Allison Inquiry.

My journey began in October 2025 when we were delivering the Health Charter Petitions to Parliament Hill. The next day Teresa and I met with MP Dean Allison. During that conversation Dean said that he would like to have an inquiry to simply listen to the stories of people injured by the COVID vaccines. We said that if he decided to have an inquiry we may be willing to help.

What followed was an eye opener for me. I learned that Members of Parliament do not feel free to have a public conversation about COVID vaccine injuries. In conversations with Dean about whether he was willing to proceed with the inquiry, he would say things like: “Aren’t I allowed to listen to Canadians?”, or “What’s wrong with simply listening to Canadians?” We met with other MPs to see if they would be willing to sit on a panel for the inquiry. We discovered similar disbelief. They did not believe that they would be “allowed” to publicly listen to Canadians share their personal stories about their vaccine injuries.

I shouldn’t have been surprised that Members of Parliament are afraid to publicly acknowledge COVID vaccine injuries by listening to injured Canadians. There has been a spell over this land preventing us from acknowledging the harm caused by the vaccines. When the vaccines were rolled out, there was tremendous pressure to take them. There was public shaming for anyone who opposed them. There were job losses for dissenters. There were restrictions on dissenters. The nation is still traumatized from the experience.

The fear that was instilled to prevent us from publicly questioning the vaccines is still there. This is why MPs are afraid to have a public conversation.

But we must have the conversation. A September 2025 Rasmussen poll found that 56% of Americans believed that the COVID vaccines caused a significant number of unexplained deaths. We don’t know the percentage of Canadians who believe that the COVID vaccines caused a significant number of unexplained deaths, but I expect it is similar to the US. The percentage of Canadians who believe that the COVID vaccines caused injuries short of death could be even higher.

We are a nation in a crisis which is pretending there is no crisis. We are a nation where over half of us believe a medical intervention imposed on us caused a significant number of deaths. We are still being divided over the issue. The Government, the mainstream media, and the medical system will not admit that the COVID vaccines have caused meaningful harm, let alone a significant number of deaths and severe injuries. We are still being gaslit on this issue. We are still being divided on this issue.

The reluctance to have an honest conversation about vaccine injury is not only keeping us divided, it is causing further death and harm. At the Allison Inquiry we are being flooded with applications by vaccine injured persons to testify. A common theme is that the medical system will not admit that these patients are vaccine injured. As a result, they are denied medical treatments. They are also denied proper treatment. Doctors around the world have developed effective protocols to treat COVID vaccine injuries. Canadians are being denied these treatments. This is causing unnecessary suffering and death. This has to stop.

We are a nation that prides itself on caring for the disadvantaged and sick. We have to take care of those who are injured for trying to protect us.

Those injured by the COVID vaccines are not members of the class of people disdained by the mainstream media, “the unvaxxed”. Those injured by the COVID vaccines are the vaccinated. They are those who took the vaccine because they were told it was necessary to protect their fellow Canadians. They took one for the team and now they are injured. We have a duty to care for them. We have a duty to recognize them.

The Allison Inquiry is a start. On September 8–11, Members of Parliament will listen to Canadians injured by the COVID vaccines tell their stories. We all need to participate in watching to acknowledge their bravery in sharing.

Anyone injured by a COVID vaccine is invited to apply to be a witness at the Allison Inquiry — visit allisoninquiry.com Everyone is invited to watch the Inquiry live.

Let’s have the forbidden conversation.

Shawn Buckley

There are three reasons why we ever consented to government being formed in the first place.

Before government existed, everyone agreed on a few basic things. You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to make a living so that you can continue to live. And you have the right to the property necessary to make that living. That’s it. Those are the things we all agreed on before any government showed up.

So we formed governments to take over those functions. To take over our self-defense. To take over the defense of our property. To take over the protection of our right to earn a living.

That was the deal.

And then every single Western nation (and Canada is probably the worst) actually turned into the thief.

Without any of us voting on it, without any of us being consulted, over half of our income is now taken from us. People who were serfs in feudal Europe kept more of the fruits of their labor than we do today. Let that sit with you for a moment. Medieval serfs. More of their own money. Than you keep of yours.

We call ourselves a democracy. And that word means something specific. It means citizens have a say in decisions. So let me ask you something. How many referendums have you been involved in federally? Because I haven’t been involved in one. Not once has the federal government said, the country is divided on this, this is an important issue, let’s have a referendum and the government will follow the will of the people.

I was involved in a referendum once. In the city of Kamloops. Over water meters. The citizens voted overwhelmingly against smart meters. And then the city promptly installed them anyway.

So we don’t have a democracy. You have no say on important decisions. You have no say on minor decisions. You have no say at all.

Our federal and provincial parliaments have gotten into this complete game where they come up with programs to either put you and your children in debt, or they tax you to give your money to causes you don’t support. And you have no say in any of it.

And then when we do get to vote — which is the one and only input we have — they undermine even that. We just had an election. A tight election. The country fairly evenly divided. And in a very short period of time, three MPs crossed the floor. Three. That’s unprecedented. That changes the power dynamics in every committee. That changes the entire parliament. And not a single MP stood up and said, wait a second. This violates the spirit of what just happened. Nobody said a word.

Because it’s legal. Nobody broke a law. Nobody broke a convention. But it makes a complete mockery of the only thing we actually get to have input on — which party do we want to form the government.

So here’s where I want to land.

As soon as we start having a conversation about rights, we’ve already lost. That’s the wrong conversation. We should be having a conversation about what privileges we grant the government.

Not what rights do we have. What privileges do we grant them.

Government is there for national defense. Government is there to keep the peace. To enforce the laws that prevent murder, theft, and fraud — the things most of us would agree on, the things that flow from loving your neighbor as yourself. We all agree we need government to keep the peace and maintain the rule of law.

But we cannot have government with the right to take our money for things we disagree with. We cannot have government with control over life and death. We cannot have government dictating to provinces, which is exactly what’s happened since Trudeau Sr. started taxing the whole country and then handing bags of cash to the provinces on the condition they spend it the way Ottawa wants.

Medicine is the perfect example. The provinces are addicted to those transfers now. No premier could refuse federal healthcare money. The population would rebel. The medical system would falter. So the federal government controls the provinces. Our constitution isn’t working the way it was supposed to.

Canada is broken. I’ve been saying that for years. You can go find old podcasts where I said I wasn’t sure we’d survive as a nation — and that was before the Alberta separation conversation even started.

But here’s what I know. My God established this earth and owns everything in it. He is not limited by any of this. He has a destiny for Alberta. He has a destiny for Canada. And I think we absolutely have to be involved.

But we have to get the conversation right first. Stop asking what rights the government will allow you to have. Start asking what you are willing to grant them — and hold the line there.

That’s where this has to go.

Thanks for reading,

Shawn Buckley

Bill C-34 is Canada’s one-way ticket to a totalitarian Hell.

Once in this Hell, Canada will be unable to escape, save for a mighty moving of God.

On June 10, 2025, Bill C-34 was introduced into Parliament. C-34 is a full step into a control grid to restrict free speech. They will start softly at first, but once in the control grid, Canada will not be able to get out of the trap without Divine help.

Read C-34 here - Bill C-34

What is free speech and why is it important

Free speech is simply the situation where you are free to say what you want, regardless of what you are saying, without the state interfering. Not long ago, Canada had relatively free speech. You were relatively free to speak whatever you wanted without the state fining or imprisoning you. There were criminal prohibitions against sedition (the state protecting itself) and against severe forms of defamation. Other than this the state largely kept away from interfering with what we said.

Where there is free speech, things are said that we don’t like, which offend us, which hurts us. And we have to put up with it. Countries with free speech have some individuals convinced to hate or to threaten or to damage property. But the numbers are small. What is crucial to understand is that, in countries that do not have free speech, some individuals are also convinced to hate, or to threaten, or to damage property. We don’t actually know if laws that restrict free speech reduce hate, threats, or property damage.

History has shown us that the countries that are the most free, have the most freedom of speech. We all understand that police states control and restrict speech to enable the government to control the population.

C-34 creates the infrastructure for the government to control and restrict speech.

We are already afraid to speak the way we once did - now it is going to get much, much worse

We have been in a long term process of getting us to accept restrictions on speech - always for our safety, always to protect us. We now have restrictive hate laws, both in the Criminal Code and in human rights legislation. In some circumstances, even using the wrong pronoun, could be considered hateful. These restrictions have made many of us afraid to say what we really think. We are afraid of being punished.

One of the protections of free speech is that you have a better idea of what people think. When people are afraid to speak, you cannot know how they really feel on a topic. They are afraid to tell you. This separates us. This prevents us from knowing currents of public thought.

When we are afraid to speak our minds, we have to be guarded with each other. We are isolated. We are afraid to be reported to the state. History tells us that there is a subset of every population that is eager to share what others say with the state. When East Germany opened the secret police files, people were shocked to learn who around them had been reporting their comments to the police.

This is where C-34 takes Canada.

C-34 builds the censorship infrastructure needed to control our speech

To control a nation’s speech, there must be an organization to oversee speech. There have to be mechanisms created to monitor, to censor, and to punish speech the state wants to prevent. For those familiar with George Orwell’s book 1984, the organization to oversee speech was called “The Ministry of Truth”. C-34 creates Canada’s Ministry of Truth (called the Digital Safety Commission of Canada).

Some highlights to the new control grid being created by C-34:

• the Digital Safety Commission of Canada is created to ensure the new restrictions on speech are strictly enforced;

• the Minister of this Commission can be a member of the King’s Privy Counsel. This person does not need to be an elected Member of Parliament. This person does not need to be Canadian;

• internet providers, social media platforms, and other online services (the Private Sector) are forced to monitor the speech of their users for the Government;

• the Private Sector is obligated to censor certain types of speech;

• the fines for non-compliance are excessive and will keep the Private Sector diligent in the monitoring of our speech;

• the Private Sector will have to pay for the Commission with fees, which will prevent new small entrants into the Private Sector;

• expect to have to verify your identity and age to access the internet and social media platforms to protect the “youth”. To make this less onerous expect eye or thumb scans to access these platforms. This will lead to the introduction of digital ID. Gone are autonomous internet searches;

• youth can be banned from specific social media platforms as is occurring in other countries. The Government will have the power to ban youth from channels the government does not approve of (including ones which do not support the government);

• others can complain about your content forcing you to engage in a complaints process.

Knowing that what we say is being strictly monitored and assessed for a series of possible violations will make us even more afraid of truthfully expressing ourselves. We will become more divided, and more suspicious of each other.

The next generation will not know what it was like to autonomously search the internet. They will be conditioned that government surveillance is normal and acceptable.

There is no need for C-34 - there is no fire to put out

Whenever the Government takes away our freedoms we are told it is for our safety.

C-34 is being touted to protect us, especially children, from terrorism, hate speech, content that incites violence, pornography and content that sexually victimizes a child.

We already have strict laws on these issues. We are already afraid to speak. C-34 is a solution without a problem. We do not need C-34. Rather we need to roll back some of our restrictions on free speech. We have gone too far.

Once the Ministry of Truth and the censorship infrastructure is in place, it is too late

C-34 creates the infrastructure to censor speech, your speech.

Once such an invasive infrastructure is in place it is difficult to remove.

C-34 prohibits “content that incites violence” which includes content that encourages an act that causes property damage and interferes with essential services or systems. When this language was included in a previous bill, Bill C-63 the Online Harm Act, many correctly worried that it could prohibit any future trucker convoy.

C-34 could be used to censor speech directed at dismantling the control structure set up by C-34.

Who watches the watcher?

Canada has a better destiny than this

I believe that God has destined Canada to be both a nation of refuge and a nation of freedom. C-34 is not part of our destiny.

Share this with others!

C-34 was introduced on June 10, and I have seen zero coverage on it. We need to get the public aware. Please share this post with instructions to those you share it with to share it with others.

In other words - tell others to tell others.

God Bless.

Shawn Buckley

Support our Work Here:

https://nhppa.org/bill224/

You Can Also Find Me Here:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ShawnBuckleyLaw

Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/ShawnBuckleyLaw?e9s=src_v1_cmd

X: https://x.com/Shawnbuckleylaw

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61578770096052

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shawnbuckleylaw/

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@shawnbuckleylaw

Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/shawnbuckleylaw

It has been a tearful sixteen days at the Allison Inquiry. We announced the Allison Inquiry sixteen days ago, and it has been an emotional whirlwind ever since. Last week was particularly tearful.

The Allison Inquiry will likely be the most independent inquiry in Canadian history. The Allison Inquiry is not a government inquiry. It is not connected to any political party. It is citizen organized, citizen led and citizen funded. All Members of Parliament and the Senate are invited, and we don’t know which ones will be on the Panel. This is the first time in history citizens will organize an independent inquiry for law makers to attend to question witnesses.

The Allison Inquiry is set to hear testimony from Canadians about deaths and injuries caused by the Covid vaccines. The hearings will be from September 8-11 on Parliament Hill.

There have been no inquiries, forums, or other events permitting vaccine injured persons to publicly share their stories for over two years. There has never been an inquiry in Canada involving law makers.

Over the last sixteen days I have learned that persons injured by the Covid vaccines are desperate to have a public forum to share their stories. We have hardly started to get word of the Allison Inquiry out, and we have already had more than 500 witness applications. We have been getting pressure like I have never experienced before from witnesses wanting to testify. Some are desperate to get their stories told before they die.

We have no idea how many applications we will have before we are done, but it is already clear that only a small fraction of those that apply will be selected. But, everyone who is desperate to have their story told needs to be heard in some way. When people are asked to fill in the second more detailed witness form, we are asking if they will consent to their story being included in a written record to form part of the Allison Inquiry Record. We are wanting every story to be later tabled in Parliament as part of the Record.

This is an opportunity to make a statement to Parliament. We are encouraging everyone who can share about a death or injury caused by the Covid vaccines to apply to be a witness, even if they do not want to testify in person. It has become clear that Canadians need to be heard. Do your part and put the word out.

For those willing to pray, I am also asking for prayer for the volunteer team working to make the Inquiry happen. We had a Zoom call last week. I asked the volunteers working through the witness applications how they were doing. One explained the mental strategy being used to cope with the stories. Another broke into tears and was weeping on the call. The stories are heart-breaking. The team is suffering with heart-break.

We are all thankful for the over-whelming support we are getting. I am blown away that people that had no idea that the Covid vaccines could even cause injury are now asking if their injures could be from the vaccine. The discussion this Country desperately needs is starting.

We need to all participate in watching the Inquiry. The injured brave enough to share their personal lives with you deserve to be heard. It will be an experience that will change all of us who watch. It is part of our journey as a nation.

Link to the Allison Inquiry

The Allison Inquiry May Be Our Only Chance to Break the Silence on Vaccine Injury

Yet to my surprise, many in the freedom community are on the wrong team — and they are undermining this one chance.

The Importance of the National Citizens Inquiry

I closed my law office and volunteered full time for three years to help set up and run the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI). The NCI held 27 days of testimony looking into how all levels of government handled the Covid-19 pandemic. We called 405 witnesses. I was involved in practically every aspect of the organization of these hearings. I also personally called over half of the 405 witnesses. I interviewed most of the others and parceled them out to the lawyers I was managing. Next to my wife Teresa, no person has volunteered more time at the NCI than I have.

The NCI testimonies and Commissioner Reports on Covid are the most important resource on what happened in the world. The NCI was independent. It was set up like a Court with the Commissioners completely independent of the NCI Board — necessary for both credibility and independence. Never before had citizens banded together to run and fund a truly independent inquiry into any issue. The thousands of volunteers that made the NCI happen have every reason to be proud.

The NCI Commissioner Reports are world class. They are better than any official government inquiry reports on any topic that I have seen. They are neutral. They are professional. The recommendations on how we can do things better demonstrate insight and wisdom.

The National Citizens Inquiry Cannot Be Duplicated

We began the NCI Covid hearings in the spring of 2023. We had been locked down for the previous two winters. Bank accounts of persons supporting the trucker convoy had recently been frozen. People were afraid. We had witness after witness drop out the day of — or the day before — testimony. They backed down because they were afraid of losing their jobs and afraid of social consequences.

I was not planning on personally calling any of the witnesses. We had lawyer teams for each city set up in advance. I ended up calling more than half of the witnesses because lawyers were dropping out. Canada was in a state of fear. The witnesses that testified at the NCI did so when things were fresh and raw. If we called the same witnesses today, three years later, the testimonies would be different. The fear would be gone. The NCI created a real-time historical record which cannot be duplicated.

The NCI Covid hearings were professional and compelling. They have set a high bar for any government commission that may follow. The Commissioner Reports are non-biased — so thorough that any government inquiry is destined to pale in comparison. The NCI has set a standard that should protect us from a government whitewash. But for that protection to hold, the NCI needs to be promoted again.

The National Citizens Inquiry Needs to Be Promoted Again

Last year, former Commissioner Ken Drysdale, Teresa, and I became concerned that we were not doing enough to promote the NCI testimonies and Commissioner Reports. We were speaking at events and podcasts, but we needed to do more. We decided to build a neutral website — one that people turned off by freedom messaging would still be willing to explore.

The website is fully searchable, creating a resource that is genuinely new. For example, you can search “Ivermectin”, and every witness, transcript, and exhibit mentioning Ivermectin will be listed for you to access. This is a new tool to promote the testimonies and Reports.

You Can Find it Here

Promoting the NCI has always been a public effort. There are too few websites hosting the testimonies and Reports. More of us need to be hosting and promoting them. People should be downloading them to ensure they can never be taken away from the public.

The NCI was citizen-organized and citizen-funded. The testimonies and Reports belong to the public. I was on the NCI Board from inception through the completion of the Covid hearings, and we always took the position that the testimonies and Reports were public. Concerning the hearing videos, I likely hold the strongest copyright of anyone — I was the one creating and managing the hearings. I also hold moral copyright. As far as I am concerned, the public has full right to host and broadcast the testimonies and hearings. I certainly give my consent to the public. I am confident that former Commissioner Ken Drysdale, who authored the majority of the Commissioner Reports, and the other Commissioners, want the Reports in the public domain.

Prior to the announcement of the Allison Inquiry, hardly anyone was posting about NCI Covid testimonies. Now people are posting again. Let’s keep that momentum going.

How the Allison Inquiry Came to Be

Last fall, Teresa and I met MP Dean Allison. Dean mentioned that he would like to hold an inquiry to listen to Canadians who were vaccine injured. People were sharing their vaccine injuries with him and he wanted to hear more. The questions he asked revealed the world Members of Parliament live in: “Shouldn’t I be allowed to listen to Canadians?” and “What is wrong with just listening to people?”

These questions — and conversations with other MPs — revealed that Members of Parliament do not feel that listening to vaccine-injured Canadians in a public forum is permitted. We told Dean that if he decided to hold an inquiry, we may be willing to help.

Teresa kept in touch with Dean. We began the conversation on whether he wanted to proceed. There were many concerns. How would Parliament react? Dean is a Conservative MP — how would the Conservative Caucus react? How would the media react? What would be the personal repercussions on Dean if he decided to listen to ordinary Canadians tell their stories?

Six weeks ago, Dean decided to press ahead regardless of the consequences. We agreed to help.

What the Allison Inquiry Is — and What It Isn’t

A sole Member of Parliament deciding to hold an inquiry to listen to Canadians is no more than that: an MP deciding to listen. Because it is not an official inquiry, there are no government funds, and no infrastructure. Like the NCI, the Allison Inquiry is going to be citizen-organized, citizen-funded, and citizen-run.

We have set up a not-for-profit called the Covid Testimony Association to act as the legal vehicle to fund raise and pay for the Inquiry. We will have audio-visual costs, significant travel costs to fly and house witnesses, and administrative costs for the website and communications. When we ran NCI hearings in 2023, the average three-day city hearing cost $50,000 — not including administrative costs. For the four days of the Allison Inquiry, we are estimating a need of $70,000. As with the NCI, Teresa and I will be volunteering our time.

Navigating Between Politics and the Public

Having decided to press ahead, Dean, Teresa, and I had to figure out how to structure the Inquiry so that it had a chance of actually proceeding.

The goal is to have MPs from all parties attend. The issue of simply listening to vaccine-injured Canadians should not be partisan. It should not matter what party you are from. It would be a political non-starter if the Inquiry were to make conclusions or assign blame — we would not get any MPs, let alone MPs from all parties. We are only holding four days of hearings, which is not enough time to make credible findings anyway.

The Inquiry could not be a Conservative Party event, or MPs from other parties would not participate — and it would not be fair to vaccine-injured Canadians who simply want to share their stories. So the Allison Inquiry is independent of government and independent of any political party.

For the Allison Inquiry to succeed, we are going to need Citizens to step up and make it happen. We are already facing significant attacks.

One Important Blessing

Before the press conference, Pierre Poilievre told the Conservative Caucus that he is supportive of what Dean is doing. This should make it easier for other Conservative MPs to participate. We are hoping all other parties will make clear that their MPs are free to participate as well.

Poilievre saying he is supportive does not make this a Conservative event — just as Bloc Québécois participation would not make it a Bloc event. No political party has had any say in setting up the Allison Inquiry. No political party has attempted to have any say.

Why the Allison Inquiry Needs to Succeed — A Personal Story

We announced the Allison Inquiry a week ago. We have been flooded with applications and calls from people desperate to share their stories.

A couple of days ago, Michelle called. Teresa had her on speakerphone. Michelle was a vibrant, successful business owner and an active mother with no prior health problems. Within 48 hours of her second vaccine shot, that changed. Her vision became permanently blurred and she has lost her peripheral vision. She developed cystic masses throughout her body. She had brain surgery to remove a cyst that was compressing her brain. She is in constant burning pain. She is incontinent.

On the call, Michelle was weeping. She wants to share her story publicly. She is worried she does not have much longer to live. She wants to be heard while she is still here to speak.

It was heartbreaking. But Michelle shared something else that was equally troubling. She is part of a community of Covid vaccine-injured persons who support each other through their organization CANRise. She shared that many are finding their suffering too much to bear. Some are speaking about accessing MAID.

Find CANRise Here:

We have an obligation to give a public voice to people like Michelle while they are still alive to have a voice.

The Allison Inquiry Is Our Best Chance to Educate Members of Parliament

In meeting with MPs about this initiative, I have been absolutely shocked at how most have no idea about Covid issues that the freedom community takes for granted. MPs know that people are speaking to them about vaccine injury — some MPs are themselves injured. I have heard their personal stories. But there is a general unawareness on almost every other Covid issue. They clearly have not watched the NCI.

All MPs watch the mainstream news, because their political careers depend on complying with mainstream narratives. Most believe their party would not tolerate public dissent on vaccines and that they would be expelled from caucus. I hope the Allison Inquiry frees them to speak.

The announcement of the Allison Inquiry has already lit a fire. Social media has erupted. If this Inquiry is allowed to continue, all MPs will be watching. This is the best opportunity we have ever had to educate MPs. It may be the last. We learned at the NCI that watching ordinary Canadians share their stories is life-changing. Let’s change the lives of our MPs.

Why This May Be Our Only Chance to Break Out of the Echo Chamber

When we were running the NCI Covid hearings, we could not get out of the echo chamber. It was largely the freedom community that watched. We were censored on social media. The mainstream media largely ignored us.

What has happened since the announcement of the Allison Inquiry is different. People who follow MPs are now speaking about vaccine injury. The social media numbers are staggering. We have never before had such an opportunity to reach people outside the freedom community. It has been reported to us that Canadians are now asking whether their unexpected injuries were caused by the Covid vaccines. A dialogue has started.

Are we going to take this opportunity? Or are we going to allow the Inquiry to be squashed? Worse, are we going to participate in squashing the Inquiry?

The Knives Are Out

A couple of Liberal MPs have been attacking Dean with disturbing intensity. He has been standing up for the right of vaccine-injured persons to be heard — and the opposition is now organizing. Unless Canadians rally around Dean and the Inquiry, it could collapse. I am now experiencing direct personal attacks in the media. Journalists are being given their assignments. If you think the establishment is going to let the Allison Inquiry proceed without a fight, you are mistaken.

But the Allison Inquiry is also being attacked from within the freedom community. I am being personally attacked at an intensity I have never experienced before. I won’t repeat the names I am being called. People I have worked with for years are spouting off on social media without a single call to me to ask about the Inquiry. Although the Terms of Reference and Inquiry Rules are clearly published, the Inquiry is being slammed with outright falsehoods:

• “This is a government conspiracy” — The government has nothing to do with it. The Liberals appear to be against it.

• “This is a Conservative event” — This is not connected to the Conservative Party in any way. Teresa and I would not organize a partisan hearing.

• “This is a waste of taxpayer dollars” — I wish this were funded. Up to now, I have personally been absorbing the costs.

Which Team Are You On?

I am going to press ahead despite the attacks. The NCI went public with a press conference on November 2, 2022. From that date to the end of 24 days of hearings on May 19, 2023, we had 904 lay witness applications for all issues — not just vaccine injuries. In a single week, the Allison Inquiry has had 450 applications from vaccine-injured persons alone.

Vaccine-injured Canadians like Michelle are desperate to share their stories in a public forum. I am going to do everything I can to ensure that they can.

The freedom community can continue to try to take the Allison Inquiry down — or they can join this historic opportunity and fight to ensure the Inquiry actually proceeds.

Which team are you on? Are you for vaccine injured people like Michelle who are desperate to publicly share their stories, or are you against them?

Sincerely,

Shawn Buckley

To Learn More about the Allison Inquiry See Below:

Allison Inquiry Website

Watch the Original CPAC Accouncement

Support Our Work at NHPPA

The government needs corporate-controlled farms to ensure that biopharmaceuticals and biochemicals can be introduced into our food supply at will

My wife Teresa and I were enjoying a spring day outside of a coffee shop in Valemount, B.C recently. As we sipped our drinks, two trucks and trailers with equipment we could not identify pulled up. We were curious, so we asked what the trailer equipment was for. We learned that this was a crew travelling around trimming the hooves of cattle.

Already knowing the answer, I asked the question: Are you only trimming the hooves of cows that live indoors? The answer was yes. I then asked the second question: The cows that live outdoors don’t need their hooves trimmed? The answer was: No, they don’t.

Cattle are meant to live outside. They are meant to walk on the ground. Outdoor cattle take care of their own hooves. They never need trimming. It is only cows raised indoors, in large corporate farms, that need their hooves trimmed.

I was troubled by the hoof trimming trucks and how scary it must be for the cows to be corralled into a trailer, confined, and then to have their hooves trimmed. They must be terrified each time. I am even more troubled by the practice of raising cattle inside industrial buildings. They are not free to roam around. They are not free to eat fresh plants. They do not get to feel the sun, the wind, and the rain. They will never see the stars. They will never breathe fresh air. They live their entire lives in a crowded building that stinks of manure.

Crippled Cows and Crying Pigs

The indoor cows will also become crippled. My dairy farmer friend Tyler tells me that when you go to a cattle auction you can tell which cows were raised indoors because they do not walk correctly.

I then thought of another troubling animal experience I had in Valemount. It was in the winter. It was bitterly cold. I was putting gas in my car and there was a trailer of live pigs parked nearby. The pigs were freezing and in distress. They were crying and crying.

As part of a deliberate campaign to consolidate our food supply into corporate control, the government shut down the small local abattoirs. Shutting down the local abattoirs helped corporate profits. But it was a disaster for animals which had to suffer long journeys to be slaughtered. The crying pigs were victims of this government action.

And that was not the end of the suffering for the crying pigs. A farming friend has shared with me that at some of the big slaughter houses pigs are put on a metal floor and electrocuted at up to fifty at a time. They wail and scream. They are often not dead when their throats are cut, and they are hung up to bleed. If you have a strong stomach, you may want to watch the video link below of pigs being slaughtered in Canada. You will be troubled.

I shouldn’t be surprised that we are now mistreating cattle by raising them indoors. Most of our pigs are raised indoors. Most of our chickens and turkeys are raised indoors.

We all know that animals are meant to live outside. It takes little imagination to understand that a cow, pig, or chicken confined to an indoor pen will have no quality of life. Most of us would agree that transporting animals long distances for slaughter is cruel, especially in the winter. Most of us would also agree that animals should be killed with as little fear and suffering as is possible.

I am ashamed of what we are doing to animals. How we treat animals is a reflection of our society. I don’t like what I see.

Government Pushes Farming towards Corporate Control

Why are we doing this? Why is there a relentless push by our governments to consolidate our food supply into corporate control? We closed down the local abattoirs, leaving only large slaughter houses that process thousands of animals a day. They have a production line that cannot be slowed. We are raising animals indoors in production facilities, rather than farms. Everything measured. Everything controlled. No sunshine. No wind. No rain. No stars. Lots of profits.

There are still family owned farms where animals live outside, but these are now being targeted by the state. Farmers are being subjected to ever-stricter controls and regulations that are designed to make family farming unaffordable, and a burden rather than a joy. The ever-stricter regulatory burden is specifically designed to get rid of the smaller farms so that our food supply will be consolidated into large corporate farms.

The large corporate farms will do everything the government wants. They will pump the animals full of vaccines and drugs. They will use only the feed approved of by the government. They will register and track every single animal. When Health Canada wants us to eat cloned meat, they will raise cloned animals.

Health Canada has published an opinion on cloned meat which explains that the main advantage of cloned meat is: “to produce several copies of transgenic animals that were bioengineered to have novel traits, such as the production of biopharmaceuticals, other biochemicals, or enhanced nutritional profiles.” (emphasis added)

The government needs corporate farms to ensure that biopharmaceuticals and biochemicals can be introduced into our food supply.

Cloned meat will be another disaster for animals. The European Union has banned the cloning of animals because it causes too much animal suffering. Such ethical considerations don’t seem to apply in Canada. To learn more about the cloning of animals watch the NHPPA video at https://nhppa.org/dangers-of-cloned-meat-being-ignored/.

Bon appetit!

Resources

1. Pig slaughter video — https://www.peta.org/news/pig-slaughterhouse-in-canada/

2. Health Canada Opinion on cloned meat — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update/scientific-opinion.html#a1.4.2.1

Shawn Buckley, LLB, is a lawyer who has been conducting legal advocacy for natural health products (NHPs) for 30 years, and the president and founder of the Natural Health Product Protection Association (NHPPA). Visit https://nhppa.org

Something is happening to property ownership in Canada that most Canadians don’t know about (or aren’t taking seriously enough).

We are in a controlled, intentional, demolition right now.

I’ve had three different MPs from three different regions independently tell me, almost using the same language, that Canada is in a controlled demolition.

That’s not hyperbole. Those are the words they used. Controlled demolition.

There was a time when it served the interests of those who guide us for us to be nation building. They were happy to grant us land rights. They were happy for us to be building farms, building roads. If you obtained a fee simple title to rural property, you could build your barn, build your house, and drill a well without government permission. Now you are not free to do any of that without government permission.

We were free to build without government permission before, because our masters were interested in nation creation. We are no longer free to build without permission, because our masters are now interested in nation destruction.

Canada is being shaken so that it can be remade into a society dependent on the government and controlled by the government. The biggest obstacle to the remaking of Canada into a communist state is the middle class. And in Canada, most of the middle class wealth, which is their power, is in the equity of their homes and their land. So to remake Canada into something else, equity in our land needs to be destroyed.

What Ownership Actually Means

The term “ownership” is really a description of control over property. An “owner” is the person who controls property.

If you rent a house, you know you can’t move walls or put in bigger windows. The owner can. That’s what ownership means. It defines who gets to say what’s done with something. Who has control.

We’ve inherited a feudal system from the United Kingdom. In simple terms, a ship arrived from the UK with a Union Jack flag, planted it in the ground, and that came to mean that the King or Queen of England owned all the land. The King has what’s called allodial ownership, title without a superior landlord.

Pull your land title. It will say fee simple. A fee is just a grant from the crown to use land. Simple means without restriction. But we don’t really own the land. The crown is still sovereign over the land and can take it away from us. The crown can take our control over land away.

When I was younger, if you bought a rural property, you could build a house without a permit. You could drill a well without asking. You could build a barn. You could dig a dugout. Now chances are you can’t do any of that without government permission. It’s become so complicated that you can’t turn around without government permission. That’s government assuming ownership. Remember ownership is control. If the government controls what can or cannot be done with land, then the government owns the land. You are really a glorified serf, enjoying occupancy at the sufferance of your Landlord.

All of Canada is Vulnerable to UNDRIP

Canada signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Section 26 of UNDRIP obligates the return of all land that Indigenous peoples have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used. The Treaty obligates Canada as a signatory to transfer ownership of the land to Indigenous people. And so that there is no misunderstanding about what this entails, Article 26 spells out that:

Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use…

What part of occupied Canada, where people live, was not Indigenous land?

And this treaty does not limit itself to unceded land. The treaty makes no distinction between ceded land, unceded land, patented land, land that a hundred years ago the crown paid above market value for. It doesn’t matter. It all goes back.

If signing the treaty wasn’t enough, Parliament passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021. This act compels the government of Canada to fully implement the treaty. Parliament now has a legal obligation to transfer the land back.

I talk to MPs who don’t know about it. How can it not be front page news that Canada signed UNDRIP? How can it be that Canadians are not aware that Canada has passed a law obligating the government to basically dilute your ownership?

The Musqueam Agreement

The federal government has signed a treaty with the Musqueam Nation which covers where 2 million people live in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Why haven’t you read a copy of that agreement?

Because they haven’t released it. Our federal government tells us they’ve signed a land rights agreement covering the land where 2 million people in the lower mainland of British Columbia live, and they won’t give us a copy of it.

The Musqueam Nation has less than 2,000 members. So basically, the Federal Government has signed an agreement that is meant to lead to some type of Indigenous ownership over 2 million homes in the lower mainland by a group of people of less than 2,000. How does that happen?

The Cowichan Decision and What It Means for Your Mortgage

The Cowichan case may be the longest trial in Canadian history, governing most of Richmond, British Columbia. The Cowichan band sought a court declaration that they have Indigenous title over that land. That they own it.

The court made a ruling that they were not going to inform the property owners about the Court proceedings. The people who had fee simple, who bought a house, who paid off their mortgage, who bought a commercial building were not told that their ownership was being challenged in Court. They were not told that there was a court case basically to take away their ownership. The Federal Government and the B.C. Government both also decided not to tell property owners their rights were in jeopardy.

Now we’ve got a court overlaying Indigenous title over top of fee simple title. So who is the superior landlord? Is the Cowichan band now your superior landlord? If you want to put in bigger windows, do you have to get their permission?

And here’s the practical consequence nobody is talking about: people can’t renew their mortgages. Banks don’t know if there is any equity in the homes, making the banks reluctant to renew mortgages. Can you foreclose on a house that has native title? Nobody knows. It’s a brave new world.

What This Means for Alberta

Parliament has bound itself to transfer ownership of the land back to the Indigenous peoples for Alberta too. What parts of Alberta is not the traditional land used and occupied by Indigenous peoples?

And here’s the legal problem this creates for separation. Aboriginal title, according to the King’s courts, can’t be alienated except to the King. So if a small group has overlaying title over the entire province and cannot alienate that title except to the King, how is it legally possible for Alberta to separate from the rest of Canada without the consent of these Indigenous groups?

Alberta would be separating from the British crown. The Aboriginal title can only be ceded to the British crown.

We are in a constitutional crisis created by the legal structure imposed on all of us. The King is our superior landlord and can take control of our land away from us. Remember ownership is control. The King’s Courts, through a series of decisions is creating the legal scenario where Indigenous title can be placed over-top of all other title. You may have some interest in land you purchased. But not exclusive title. There is Indigenous title which can only be alienated to the King. This means you cannot even purchase your land from the Indigenous people to get clear title.

On top of the Courts creating competing title, the Federal Government has obligated itself by the UNDRIP Act, to transfer ownership, use and control of all of occupied Canada to 3-5% of the population.

This is a constitutional crisis. And it is a deliberate crisis. Nothing is happening by accident.

The Racism Nobody Will Name

Aboriginal people make up roughly 3-5% of the population (including Metis). Let’s keep that in mind.

A Caucasian child born today in Canada, is, because of its race, guilty of historic misdeeds. Not of anything that child did. The child was just born. Despite being just born, that child is guilty of things that happened over 100 years ago by people that are long dead. And that in itself is racism.

Let me turn it around so you can see how racist this is. Let’s say we fully implement UNDRIP. The Indigenous groups own the land. This whole experiment ends up in disaster. Millions of people are impoverished. And 200 years from now, some Indigenous children are born and they’re responsible for what happened today. They’re guilty for what happened in 2026 and they owe the Caucasians retributions. They owe the Caucasians land.

We would find that outrageous and racist. Every Canadian would find that racist and outrageous. But when you say that Caucasian children that had nothing to do with anything that happened hundreds of years ago are guilty, that’s not racist, that’s justice?

Racism is racism. Racism justifies the treatment of one race differently than another race. And you can only have a racist society when you’ve taught the populace to accept the explanations of unequal treatment.

The Only Path Forward

Watch the movie Gandhi. Not a suggestion. A must.

You’re going to learn two things. You’re going to learn just how significant the cost of peaceful civil disobedience really is. Widespread civil disobedience has a tremendous cost to those brave enough to participate. The second thing you’re going to learn is that there is nothing more powerful than a population committed to peaceful civil disobedience.

It’s the only way to change things. But the cost is high. And if we do not want this controlled demolition to continue, then we are going to have to engage in peaceful civil disobedience in large numbers, despite the cost. Because the cost of not doing it is going to be so much greater.

We also have to reject the false legal foundation entirely. A ship arrived from the UK with a Union Jack and planted it in the ground and somehow the King has authority. The King owns the land. This is not a legal foundation that’s reasonable. The King doesn’t own the land. This was just a legal fiction for us to nation build. That’s all it is.

The emperor has no clothes. There is not even an emperor. Why are we allowing ourselves to be controlled? Because we’ve been taught things to control us. We have to start thinking for ourselves.

We are in a constitutional crisis. The answer is not impoverishing the nation by institutionalizing racism. Giving a small fraction of the population ownership over the entire nation in 2026 is not the answer. It is institutionalizing racism in order to remake Canada into a land without real private property. There are now 41 million Canadians from around the world. We now need to decide how do we collectively structure ourselves so that, for generations and generations, we are all free and prosperous.

If any other nation asked what we though of giving title to 3% of their population based on race, we would likely answer that they are setting themselves up for a train wreck. Property rights based on race will not lead to unity or to prosperity.

Thank you for taking the time to read and to stay informed. Stay tuned for more articles like this and live events in your area where we can gather, get involved and create change together.

If you’d like to support my work here:

• Like, share and subscribe (it’s a free and powerful thing you can do to get our message out there)

• Upgrade to a paid Substack membership

• Visit nhppa.org and sign one of our petitions or attend an upcoming event

Sincerely,

Shawn

Shawn Buckley is a constitutional lawyer and the founder of the Natural Health Product Protection Association (NHPPA). The NHPPA is actively working on land rights issues, UNDRIP, and the protection of small farms and family food sovereignty. They send one newsletter per week. Visit NHPPA.org to subscribe, attend upcoming events, and take action.

There is a question that every Canadian should be able to answer, and almost none can. It is not a trick question. It is the most basic question about the country you live in. Here it is: have you read the Canadian Constitution?

Not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a small portion of it. The whole Constitution. If you asked that question in a room of a thousand Canadians, including lawyers, you would get no hands. Not one. And yet there is no document that affects your life more. It governs which governments have authority over you, what they can do to you, who commands your military, and who actually runs the executive branch of your country. The reason you have not read it is not because it is inaccessible. It is on the Department of Justice website. The reason you have not read it is because you are not supposed to. Because if you did, the political myths that keep this system functioning would collapse.

The most foundational of those myths is that Canada is a sovereign nation.

Let us examine what sovereignty actually requires. A sovereign nation governs itself. Its laws are made by its own legislative bodies. Its land belongs to its people or its state. Its military answers to its own government. Its executive power is vested in its own institutions. By every one of these measures, Canada is not sovereign. And this is not my opinion. It is written plainly in the documents that constitute our governing law.

Our Constitution is not a document drafted by Canadians expressing their founding principles. It is a collection of statutes passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The British North America Act of 1867 is a British statute. The Constitution Act of 1982, which Canadians were shown in a ceremony with Pierre Trudeau and the Queen and told represented our patriation, is also a British statute. The Queen came to Canada and signed into law an act that had already been passed by the UK Parliament, because that is how British law works. We watched political theater and were told it was independence.

Because our Constitution consists of British statutes, the United Kingdom Parliament retains the constitutional authority to repeal or amend them. According to their own constitutional law, Parliament cannot bind itself. They are free to change our governing documents. That is not sovereignty.

Now read Section 9 of the British North America Act. It states that the executive power of Canada is vested in the monarch. Not the federal cabinet. Not the Prime Minister. The monarch. The king of the United Kingdom is the executive power of Canada. Read Section 15. The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. Substitute King. The King of the United Kingdom commands our armed forces.

When the United Kingdom was involved in providing air support during the bombing of Iran, Canada’s Prime Minister publicly supported it. Liberal supporters were shocked. They should not have been. The head of our armed forces, the executive power of our government, was engaged in that action. A Prime Minister who publicly opposed his commander in chief and his executive would be in an untenable constitutional position. The Governor General, who is the King’s representative, has the authority to dismiss the Prime Minister at any time. You do not publicly oppose your manager. That is not politics. That is the constitutional structure of Canada operating exactly as written.

Every member of Parliament swears allegiance to the King. Not to the people of Canada. Not to the Constitution. To the King. Mark Carney’s oath is publicly available. Every MP who has ever served has taken that oath. The House of Commons is the King’s House of Commons. The public revenue is the King’s revenue. And Section 54 of the British North America Act makes clear that it is not even lawful for the House of Commons to pass a spending bill unless the Governor General has first sent a message to the House requesting that bill be passed. Read that carefully. Our elected Parliament cannot legally spend public money without the King’s representative first directing them to do so. The money flows top down, not bottom up.

Then there is the question of land. If you have paid off your mortgage, you believe you own your home. You do not. What you hold is a fee simple, which is a grant from the king permitting you to use the land without restriction. The king owns your land. If you doubt this, stop paying your property taxes and observe what happens. The government will sell your property without your consent. If you owned it, they could not do that. They can do it because you do not own it. The king owns it, and the government administers it on his behalf.

So let us apply a simple test. Imagine that Canada somehow found itself free of the United Kingdom entirely, and decided to enter into the same arrangement with Luxembourg instead. Luxembourg’s Parliament would pass our governing documents. Luxembourg’s monarch would own all Canadian land. Luxembourg’s monarch would be the head of our armed forces and our executive power. Every Canadian MP would swear allegiance to the Luxembourg king. Canada could not pass a spending bill without the Luxembourg king’s representative first requesting it. Would any Canadian call that sovereignty? Would any Canadian consent to it? Of course not. And yet that is precisely the arrangement we have with the United Kingdom, and we call it independence because we have been told to.

The Privy Council Office is the mechanism through which this operates day to day. Most Canadians have never heard of it. If you asked who the most powerful person in Canada is, most would say the Prime Minister. The correct answer may be the Clerk of the Privy Council Office. The Privy Council Office is appointed by the Governor General, who is the King’s representative, to advise the executive. It contains people who are not elected. It has existed since Confederation. It is the administrative machinery through which the King’s executive power is exercised over Canada. The federal cabinet operates within this structure and is permitted to direct day to day affairs in ways that do not threaten the underlying power arrangement. But permitted is the operative word. The cabinet governs because the King suffers them to govern. That is not sovereignty.

None of this happened by accident, and none of it is hidden. It is written in documents that are publicly available and have been publicly available for over 150 years. The reason Canadians do not know this is that twelve or more years of public education, followed by publicly funded post-secondary education, has never once required them to read the most important document governing their lives. That omission is not an oversight. A population that understands its actual constitutional situation is a population that asks inconvenient questions. A population that believes it lives in an independent democracy with representative government and rule of law is a population that does not rebel.

We have been given political myths in place of political reality. The myth of sovereignty. The myth of democracy. The myth of representative government. The myth that our cabinet runs the country. The myth that we own our land. These myths are functional. They create social cohesion. They prevent the kind of unrest that genuine understanding of the power structure might produce. But they are myths, and the gap between the myth and the reality is where our rights, our property, our military, and our governance actually live.

The Constitution is on the Department of Justice website. You can read it today. There is a reason you never have. There is a reason your lawyer has not either. Start there.

An educated and engaged citizen is a powerful one.

Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself. We will continue to create free articles and videos to educate Canadian citizens. If you’d like to support the work we do at any time by simply sharing this content, getting a paid subscription here on Substack or by visiting nhppa.org to get more involved.

Shawn Buckley

Karen Peters described it like walking on golf balls.

Every step. Both feet. Her hands were swollen to twice their normal size. She had rheumatoid arthritis and her doctor had been clear about what that meant. There was no cure. She had a progressive illness that would eventually put her into a wheelchair. She was facing a life of disability, suffering and death.

To slow the progression of the disease Karen’s medical doctor offered to slow the progression of the disease which chemical drugs. One of these drugs was a chemotherapy drug called methotrexate.

For a year, Karen injected herself every week with the chemotherapy drug. For three or four days of every week, she was so sick from the drug that she wished she was dead.

She still had rheumatoid arthritis. She was still facing the wheelchair. She was still facing an early death. She was just also now suffering acutely from the treatment.

Then a friend told her to see a naturopathic doctor.

She resisted. She’d been told naturopaths didn’t have the training. (They do — in many cases more than medical doctors, particularly in nutrition.) But eventually she went. The first thing Karen told the naturopathic doctor was that she had an incurrable illness. The first thing the naturopath said to Karen was:

“There are no incurable illnesses.”

The naturopathic doctor then curred Karen with nutrition and natural remedies. No drugs. No wheelchair. No death sentence. No weekly injections that made her wish she wasn’t alive.

He also told her something else: if she had continued the methotrexate, it would have given her cancer.

The Woman on Parliament Hill

I’ve been telling Karen’s story across Canada. We drove a petition supporting the Charter of Health Freedom (https://www.charterofhealthfreedom.org/) from Victoria to Ottawa. Along the way we held live events to allow ordinary Canadians to share their health journeys. We also broadcast an online health show so that Canadians could share what I can only describe as “forbidden information”. I challenge anyone to watch their stories (https://nhppa.org/speakers/). You will not be the same.

On October 25th, we were on Parliament Hill, handing over 157,000 signatures to MP Blaine Calkins to be entered into Parliament. I was telling Karen’s story as part of the event.

Afterward, a woman named Nelda came up to me. She was weeping.

Nelda said: “You just told my story.”

Nelda had rheumatoid arthritis. She was put on methotrexate. She was suffering terribly without hope. But there was one difference.

Nelda got the cancer and they took her breasts.

I’ve thought about Nelda ever since. Karen’s story has a happy ending. Nelda’s story does not. And the only difference between them was timing and access to information.

How Many Karen Peters Are There?

That’s the question I can’t stop asking.

How many Canadians right now have rheumatoid arthritis and are being managed with weekly chemotherapy injections? Is it one? Five thousand? Fifty thousand? Two hundred thousand?

One is too many.

They are suffering without hope of ever becoming healthy again. They don’t know that others with rheumatoid arthritis have been cured. They don’t know that they should not lose hope. They don’t know because it’s actually illegal to tell them that they don’t have to be facing a wheelchair and an early death. It is illegal to share with them that there are other options that could help them. That people are being cured.

It’s illegal to tell them because of how Canada’s health laws are structured. The doctors who know can’t say it publicly without risking their licenses. The companies that make natural health products can’t share the stories without risking fines that now reach $5 million per day. The naturopaths who are doing the curing are, in some cases, being criminally convicted, not for harming anyone, but simply for practicing medicine without a medical license.

In September, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of naturopathic doctor Annie Juneau. The Court did not ask if Dr. Juneau was saving lives. Nor did the Court ask if she was alleviating suffering. Rather, the only question was: is she a medical doctor? In many provinces only medical doctors are legally allowed to diagnose, recommend or treat us. In other provinces there are narrow exceptions for some traditions such as naturopathic medicine. There is no naturopathic exception in Quebec, and so the conviction of Dr. Juneau was upheld by the Court. Sentencing is pending.

She was helping people. That was the crime.

The Magnesium Story

I want to tell you one more story, because it illustrates something important about the scale of what we’re losing.

A young mother shared her story at our health show. She’d developed restless leg syndrome which felt like electrical shocks to both legs when she laid down. The oly was to stop the muscle twitching was to walk. She was walking the floors all night. Not sleeping. Immune system deteriorating. She was getting to the point where she was losing the ability to care for her two young children.

Her medical doctor told her there was no treatment for restless leg syndrome, but offered her a Parkinson’s drug to manage it.

She looked at the side effects and she declined after reading them.

She went to a naturopath instead. The naturopath told her she was magnesium deficient.

Within a day of supplementing with magnesium, the restless leg syndrome was gone.

A muscle twitch is often a symptom of magnesium deficiency. Any naturopath knows this. Any health food store employee knows this. It is basic, foundational nutritional knowledge.

Her medical doctor did not know it. And this isn’t a criticism of that doctor as a person, it’s a structural fact. I interviewed three medical doctors for our health show, all with at least 40 years of practice. I asked each one how much nutrition training they received in medical school.

Two hours. Maybe half a day. Out of eight years of medical school.

Because the system they were trained in, the allopathic system, is not designed to cure. It’s designed to manage symptoms with chemical drugs. Nutrition cures. Nutrition is therefore not part of the curriculum.

We Are All Malnourished

Here’s something that sounds absurd until you look at the data.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been testing food for vitamins and minerals since at least 1900. The nutrient content has declined steadily for over a century. By the 1940s, the USDA was sounding the alarm: you can no longer be healthy by eating alone. The nutrients aren’t there anymore.

We are all malnourished. Not in the dramatic, visible sense but chronically, subtly, in ways that manifest as the chronic conditions many Canadians are suffering with. Many of these conditions are “chronic” because their cause, nutritional deficiency, is not being addressed.

And the doctors treating these conditions have had, on average, half a day of nutrition training.

Meanwhile, the natural health products that could address the underlying deficiencies are being regulated out of existence. Prices have quadrupled compared to the United States. Low-income Canadians can no longer afford vital nutrients. The regulatory burden is so extreme that companies are disappearing, products are disappearing, and the practitioners who know how to use them are being silenced.

What Karen’s Story Demands of Us

Karen Peters is healthy. She’s not in pain. She’s not facing a wheelchair. She’s not wishing she was dead three days a week.

The woman on Parliament Hill is living with the consequences of a system that failed her, that took her breasts.

The difference between those two outcomes is access to information and the legal right to know that other options exist.

157,000 Canadians have signed a paper petition which is the third largest in our nation’s history demanding exactly that. A Charter of Health Freedom. A new Ministry of Wellness. The legal right to access natural health products without government pre-approval. The right to be told the truth about what can help you.

You can sign it too. Go to charterofhealthfreedom.org or nhppa.org..

Because somewhere in Canada right now, there is another Karen Peters. Weekly injections. Golf balls in her feet. Wishing she was dead from the treatment.

She deserves to know there’s another way.

Shawn Buckley is a constitutional lawyer and president of the Natural Health Product Protection Association. Learn more at nhppa.org.

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing a third generation dairy farmer named Tyler. His grandfather started dairy farming in 1950. For 76 years Tyler’s family has been producing milk.

At one point, Tyler spoke with pride about how every year several school classes would come and visit the farm. Tyler would pick a couple of gentle natured cows and let the kids learn how to milk them. Back then, visiting a dairy farm was a fun learning experience. Now, visiting a dairy farm is forbidden. According to our government, school trips to farms pose too high of a pandemic risk.

Banning school trips to dairy farms is ridiculous. It is also an alarm bell for us. The government wants to get rid of the family farm, and to consolidate farming into big corporate entities. In order to do this, the government needs a justification to get public support for their agenda. That justification is fear.

Humans have been safely living with farm animals for thousands of years. In many parts of the world humans and animals share the same space, living above the barn. That was common when Canada was settled by Europeans. We were not having pandemics by interacting with animals. We were healthier physically, and spiritually, when animals and humans were free to interact.

Subscribe now

Is the One Health Policy Creating Toxic Milk and Sick Cows?

In 2008, Canada signed onto the World Health Organization’s One Health Policy. Part of this policy involves reducing the risk of pandemics by limiting interactions between humans and animals. In other words, we are going to use the risk of pandemics to limit human-animal interaction, and to make farming so difficult that small farms will disappear.

To be paid for his milk, Tyler has to comply with the requirements of a program called proAction. This requires that he enact a number of Standard Operating Procedures. These include bringing in experts to help perform a risk analysis, identifying biohazards, and coming up with a plan to minimize them. He is required to have signs around his farm warning of biohazards and telling people to stay off the property. He has to have a procedure, and follow it, to minimize biohazards if his neighbour comes over for coffee. This is literally an attack on farm hospitality.

Tyler is also now required to pump his cows full of vaccines and drugs. A cow lives on Tyler’s farm for an average of 20 to 23 years. Before the new requirements, a cow would be vaccinated only once in that 20–23 years, with a vaccine called 8-Way. Tyler explained that some calves can get black leg if they do not get this vaccine the one time. The only other drug they would use is topical Ivermectin.

Now Tyler has to give the 8-Way vaccine twice in a cow’s first year of life, and yearly thereafter. As well, Tyler is required to give six additional vaccines yearly. He is also required to administer some additional drugs. Every vaccine and drug dose must be recorded in a written book and reported to the government.

I asked Tyler if there has been a change in the health of the herd since all of these new drugs have been imposed upon them. He has noticed two changes. The calves get scours (diarrhea) more often than before. The cows are also taking longer to get pregnant. In other words, the herd is less healthy with the new drugs being imposed.

I was horrified when Tyler listed all of the newly required drugs, as he read from the Standard Operating Procedure he has to keep as part of his biosecurity plan. As a consumer, I realized that my milk is now being filled with more chemicals. Tyler now also has to wash the teats before milking with a pre-dip filled with chemicals. Before, he would use soapy water to clean the teats. Tyler has observed that the teats become discoloured with the chemicals and is concerned that the chemicals get into the milk.

The requirements of the proAction program are so demanding that two dairy farmers within a mile of Tyler’s farm have given up farming. This is by design. The playbook to get rid of small businesses in any sector is to impose ever-stricter regulations that make the business more costly financially, and more costly spiritually.

Regulatory burdens cost us spiritually. If you are forced to spend a month of each year complying with new regulations, that is a month of servitude. It is a month you are not enjoying farming. It is a month you are not free to farm, or do whatever else you want. It is a cost to your soul. We are all being afflicted with ever increasing demands on our time that cost us spiritually.

The re-framing of human-animal interaction as a danger, rather than something to be promoted and celebrated, also comes with a spiritual cost. Eventually we will accept the government propaganda and believe that it is dangerous to interact with animals. We will become more divorced from our food, and from our environment.

Getting rid of small farmers to consolidate food production with large corporate farms will not protect us. Our food will be full of chemicals. Worse, the government will be able to dictate what we can eat. We have always been a nation of family farms. We need to protect that heritage. We need to protect our farms.

Sincerely,

Shawn Buckley

Shawn Buckley, LLB, is a lawyer who has been conducting legal advocacy for natural health products (NHPs) for 30 years, and the president and founder of the Natural Health Product Protection Association (NHPPA). Visit https://nhppa.org for more information.

Resources:

• proAction workbook – dairyfarmers.ca/proaction/resources/overview

• Safe Food for Canadians Act – laws.justice.gc.ca

• Safe Food for Canadians Regulations – laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

• World Health Organization One Health – who.int/health-topics/one-health

Most Canadians have never heard of UNDRIP, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It is a treaty that the federal government signed on behalf of Canadians without any meaningful public debate, without any referendum, and without any honest disclosure of what it actually obligates Canada to do. What this treaty requires is so consequential that if Canadians understood it clearly, there would be a national conversation that those in power have no interest in having.

At its core, UNDRIP obligates signatory nations to vest property ownership back into the hands of the Indigenous Peoples who preceded European colonization. In British Columbia, we are already watching this play out in real time. The federal government has moved to transfer land in the Vancouver metro area, to the Musqueam Nation. We are talking about a band with fewer than 2,000 members receiving jurisdiction over land that is home to approximately 2 million Canadians. The government has not released the terms of the agreement. Canadians are being asked to accept a seismic shift in property rights without being permitted to read the document that governs it.

To understand why this is happening, you have to understand the legal architecture underneath it. The King of the United Kingdom owns all land in Canada. The King has allodial ownership. Allodial ownership is ownership of land free from a superior landlord. The King owns your land and is your superior landlord. Even when you pay off your mortgage, you do not own your land. What you hold is called a fee simple, which is a grant from the King permitting you to use the land without restriction. The King remains the owner. The King remains your superior landlord. That is why the King can take your land, such as through expropriation. That is why the King can put restrictions on your land. That is why the King can grant to others property rights to land you think you own, but do not own.

UNDRIP creates is a treaty obligation on the King to transfer ownership of most of our populated areas to Indigenous Peoples.

In 2021, Parliament passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. This Act commits the Government of Canada to fully implement the UNDRIP treaty. In other words, this Act legally binds the Government of Canada to transfer ownership of all parts of Canada traditionally used or occupied by Indigenous Peoples to Indigenous Peoples. This is most, or all, of populated Canada. Article 26 of the UNDRIP treaty reads:

Article 26

• 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

• 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

• 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

An important point to recognize is that UNDRIP is not limited to unceded land. Many in Canada think that they are safe from having indigenous property rights being imposed on their property because they live where land was ceded by treaty to the King. This is an error. UNDRIP is not restricted to unceded land. It applies to all land traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used by Indigenous Peoples, ceded or unceded. The Government of Canada has committed itself to transfering ownership of most, if not all, of populated Canada.

We can also expect that Courts will start treating ceded land as unceed land. The legal argument that will follow the unceded territory decisions in British Columbia is predictable. The next step will be to challenge the validity of the treaties ceding land to the King. The argument will be that Indigenous Peoples did not understand the European legal concept of land ownership, that they had no framework for what they were surrendering, and therefore those treaties are invalid. If that argument succeeds, and there is a reasonable legal basis for it, then virtually all of Canada becomes unceded territory subject the imposition of indigenous title completely independent on the UNDRIP obligations.

The human consequences of what is already happening in British Columbia are enormous and almost entirely undiscussed. Property owners in the lower mainland do not know whether they will be able to refinance their homes. They do not know whether new mortgages will be issued on land whose title is now in legal uncertainty. They do not know whether the band will lease the land back to them, charge them rent, or eventually require them to leave. Commercial properties face the same uncertainty. The potential financial destabilization this creates for British Columbia, and potentially for Canada as a whole, is staggering. And it was done without a single public vote. It was done in secret.

There is a deeper question worth considering. Even if you accept the premise that the history of colonization was exploitative and that Indigenous Peoples were wronged, the question of remedy still demands honest debate. Is transferring ownership over land that has been “owned” and used in some cases for centuries, an appropriate remedy? We have built this nation on property rights and ownership. Is it proper to completely undermine this foundation as the remedy? Does this path risk so impoverishing Canada that all of us are much worse off, including the Indigenous Peoples?

What are the consequences for Canada if all property currently owned is transfered to Indigenous Peoples?

These are questions we should be debating.

Why are we not having a public discussion about this? Why is this happening in secret? No party in Parliament is telling us about this issue which has the potential to reshape this nation more than any other issue.

I’ve been doing various speaking events on this topic. Helping Canadians understand where their rights are vulnerable and what they can do to protect them.

The best way to stay updated on these topics (or if you want to attend our next in person event) is to subscribe here to my Substack newsletter or you can follow me on X at https://x.com/Shawnbuckleylaw

Thanks for your support.

Shawn Buckley

I’ve been a lawyer fighting Health Canada for 32 years.

I was actually counsel for Health Canada in 1994. Then I switched sides. And what I’ve seen from both sides of that table has led me to one conclusion that most Canadians aren’t ready to hear:

Our universal healthcare system (the one we’re told is the envy of the world) is, by design, the distribution arm of the chemical drug industry.

That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a legal and structural fact. And once I walk you through the architecture, you won’t be able to unsee it.

It Started Before Most of Us Were Born

After the First World War, there was a concerted effort to consolidate medicine in North America around a single philosophy of healing.

Every state. Every province. One by one, they passed laws establishing Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, defining the “practice of medicine” so broadly that it captured diagnosing, treating, preventing illness and then restricting that practice exclusively to allopathic medical doctors.

Every other healing tradition including naturopathic, homeopathic, Chinese medicine, herbal and nutritional consulting was effectively made illegal.

Allopathic medicine is not just a set of tools, it’s a philosophy. And that philosophy is this: don’t fix the problem. When someone comes to you suffering, don’t identify and resolve the root cause of their suffering. Instead, reduce the symptoms. Manage the experience of being sick.

Every other healing tradition, in one way or another, works toward curing the patient, meaning resolving the underlying cause so the symptoms disappear. The allopathic system stands alone as a philosophy that explicitly does not do this.

And we made it the only legal option.

The Trap: How Everything ELSE Became Illegal

The legal architecture gets truly extraordinary here.

Canada’s Food and Drug Act defines “drug” so broadly that it includes anything used to prevent or treat illness, including basic nutrition. Water used therapeutically is, legally, a drug. Vitamin C is a drug. Magnesium is a drug.

Then we made all drugs illegal.

Regulations require Health Canada approval and a license before any drug can be sold. The moment that regulation passed, every substance used to prevent or treat illness became illegal by default.

Health Canada then grants exemptions. Temporary licenses. Permissions.

Think about what that means philosophically: it is illegal for you to address your own illness unless the government has pre-approved your treatment. You are not free to heal yourself. You require permission.

This is the critical piece….

Then the approval process was structured to be so expensive, so lengthy, so technically demanding, that in the entire history of this system, every drug approved for a serious health condition has been a synthetic chemical that held a patent at the time of approval. The only exception I am aware of is Premarin, which is made from the urine of pregnant horses.

Natural substances cannot be patented. So they cannot recoup the cost of approval. So they never get approved.

Which means: the only legal treatments in Canada for serious health conditions are patented synthetic chemicals and surgery.

Universal Healthcare Completes the Trap

Now layer in our universal healthcare system.

The only legal treatments for serious health conditions are surgery and patented chemical drugs. The only way most Canadians can access those treatments is through the public healthcare system. The system was built around those treatments. The doctors are trained in those treatments. The hospitals stock those treatments.

Our universal healthcare system exists to deliver patented pharmaceutical products to Canadians. The chemical drugs approved to treat serious health conditions are only available by prescription. We can only access these “legal” treatments through our universal healthcare.

It is universal in name. It is a distribution network in function.

And the allopathic model makes this sustainable. If doctors were trained to cure patients (and by that I mean identify root causes and resolve them) the demand for lifetime pharmaceutical management would collapse. The model only works if patients are never cured. The philosophy of symptom management is not a flaw in the system. It is the system’s load-bearing wall.

Censorship Allows for the Structure to Hold

There’s one more piece of architecture that holds this together: censorship.

It is illegal in Canada to share truthful health information that falls outside an approved label claim. If Health Canada licenses a drug as an antidepressant, the manufacturer can only tell you it’s an antidepressant. Nothing more.

And the clinical trial process that produces those approvals? I had a psychiatrist explain it to me in federal court. He told me, without embarrassment, that he runs eight clinical trials simultaneously to get the two he needs — the two that show a statistical separation between the drug and a sugar pill.

The other six trials? The ones that were inconclusive, or showed the placebo outperforming the drug, or showed the drug working but with alarming safety signals?

It is illegal for the drug company to share those six trials with the public.

The researchers can publish them. But they don’t. Only the successful trials get published. The failed ones disappear.

This is not a loophole. This is the design.

The Cost of the Model

Professor Alan Castles from the University of Victoria shared something on our nhppa.org health show that stopped me cold: the third leading cause of death in Canada are chemical psychiatric drugs.

A medical doctor who teaches at the University of Copenhagen has published research suggesting that pharmaceutical drugs may be the leading cause of death in Western nations.

We don’t have a public conversation about this. We can’t. The censorship provisions make it illegal to share the information that would start that conversation.

As the NHPPA’s World Greatest Health Show made clear, many Canadians are only alive because of natural remedies. Their stories which you can view at nhppa.org are compelling. The crime is that those who know of these life-saving remedies, the doctors and the manufacturers, cannot tell you about them. This means that others, facing death with the chemical drugs, cannot be told they can be cured. They are left to suffer and die.

What We’re Asking For

The Charter of Health Freedom doesn’t ask for anything radical. It takes the health rights the courts already say we have and codifies them. It removes natural health products from Health Canada’s jurisdiction, an agency that has spent three decades treating vital nutrients as threats, and creates a new Ministry of Wellness with a mandate to actually protect and promote our access to health.

More than 157,000 Canadians have signed the paper petition. It is now the third largest paper petition in our 157-year history as a nation.

Subscribe to our newsletter at https://nhppa.org and join our campaign to make the Charter law.

Shawn Buckley is a constitutional lawyer and president of the Natural Health Product Protection Association. Learn more at nhppa.org.

By Shawn Buckley

I want to show you something that will change how you see your doctor’s office, your hospital, and your pharmacy.

This isn’t a theory or just my political opinion. This is a legal structure. One that I’ve spent 30 years working inside as a constitutional lawyer, first for Health Canada, then against them.

Canada's drug laws make it illegal to treat illness with anything the government hasn't pre-approved.

Here is the law that basically makes it illegal to cure you in Canada. I’ll take it one step at a time.

Step One: Define Everything as a Drug

Canada’s Food and Drug Act defines “drug” to include anything used to prevent or treat illness.

Not just pharmaceuticals. Not just prescription medications. Anything.

Water, used therapeutically, is a drug under this definition. Vitamin C is a drug. Magnesium is a drug. Parsley in a capsule is a drug (Nature Sunshine actually couldn’t get a license for encapsulated parsley because Health Canada couldn’t find human safety studies proving parsley is safe.)

Parsley. The herb that’s been in human food for thousands of years. Legally a drug. Legally dangerous until proven otherwise.

This is not an accident of drafting. This is the foundation of the entire system.

Step Two: Make All Drugs Illegal

Once everything is a drug, the next step is straightforward: make all drugs illegal.

Regulations under the Food and Drug Act prohibit the sale of any drug without Health Canada approval in the form of a license. The moment those regulations passed, every substance used to prevent or treat illness ( including water, vitamin C, and parsley) became illegal to sell for therapeutic purposes.

Health Canada then grants exemptions, licenses or permissions to exist.

The legal and philosophical consequence of this structure is precise and devastating: it is illegal in Canada to address illness with any treatment the government has not pre-approved. You do not have a right to treat yourself. You have a privilege, granted by Health Canada, to use the treatments Health Canada has decided to permit.

Step Three: Ensure Only Patented Chemicals Can Afford Approval

The approval process is expensive. Extraordinarily expensive. Deliberately so.

To get a drug approved for a serious health condition, you need clinical trials. Multiple rounds. Years of data. Regulatory submissions that cost tens of millions of dollars. The only entities that can absorb those costs are companies with a financial return large enough to justify the investment.

Natural substances cannot be patented. You cannot patent magnesium. You cannot patent vitamin C. You cannot patent a plant extract that’s been used medicinally for centuries. Without a patent, there’s no exclusivity. Without exclusivity, there’s no return on a $50 million approval process.

So natural substances don’t get approved. They can’t. The economics make it structurally impossible.

The result: in the entire history of Canada’s drug approval system, every single drug approved for a serious health condition, except Prrmarin, has been a synthetic chemical that held a patent at the time of approval. Every single one. The system has never approved a natural remedy for a serious condition. And not because natural remedies don’t work, but because the approval process was built in a way that makes their approval economically impossible.

Step Four: Build a Healthcare System Around the Only Legal Treatments

Now we have a situation where the only legal treatments for serious conditions are patented synthetic chemicals and/or surgery. The next step is to build a healthcare system that delivers exactly those treatments.

Universal healthcare that’s publicly funded and universally accessible.

The only legal treatments are surgery and patented chemical drugs. The only way most Canadians can access those treatments is through the public system. Doctors are trained in those treatments. Hospitals stock those treatments. The entire infrastructure is oriented around those treatments.

This is not universal healthcare in any meaningful sense. It is a publicly funded delivery mechanism for pharmaceutical products. The “universal” part means you can access it regardless of income. The “healthcare” part means something very specific: surgery or drugs.

Nothing else is legal. Nothing else is covered. Nothing else is taught in medical school. In fact, the three medical doctors I interviewed for our health show each reported receiving approximately two hours of nutrition training across eight years of medical education.

Step Five: Censor Everything That Threatens the Model

The final piece of the architecture is censorship.

When Health Canada grants a drug license, it approves a label claim. That label claim is the only thing the manufacturer can legally communicate to the public about that product. An antidepressant can be called an antidepressant. Nothing more.

The clinical trial process that produces those approvals is itself structured around selective disclosure. A psychiatrist explained it to me in federal court without apparent embarrassment: he runs eight clinical trials simultaneously to get the two he needs. The two that show a statistical separation between the drug and a placebo (usually over a trial period of just a couple of weeks) because longer trials produce inconvenient safety signals.

The other six trials, the ones showing the placebo outperforming the drug, or showing the drug working but with alarming side effects, or simply showing inconclusive results — it is illegal for the drug company to share those trials with the public.

The researchers can publish them. They don’t. Only successful trials get published. The system is designed to produce the appearance of evidence while suppressing the evidence that contradicts it.

This is not a system flaw but the architecture of the system itself.

The $5 Million Per Day Escalation

If you thought the existing structure was aggressive, the 2023 federal budget added a new dimension.

Natural health products like vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, the products that sit in health food stores and naturopathic clinics, were moved from their own lower-risk regulatory category into the same category as prescription pharmaceuticals. The same category as Vioxx. As thalidomide.

The maximum fine for violations went from $5,000 to $5 million per day.

For context: a $5 million daily fine is pocket change for Pfizer. It is an extinction-level event for a naturopathic clinic, a health food store, or a small natural health company.

The effect has been immediate and predictable. Self-censorship has exploded. Practitioners who were already cautious about sharing health information are now terrified. Companies are disappearing. Products are disappearing. The Quebec Court of Appeal, just two and a half months ago, upheld the criminal conviction of naturopath Annie Juneau — not for harming anyone, but for practicing medicine without an MD. Under the new fine structure, if she had been using natural health products in that practice, she could face $5 million per day.

The message is clear and it’s going to have a devastating effect on natural health products and providers.

The American Comparison

In 1994 — the same year I started fighting Health Canada — the United States faced a similar crisis. Natural health products were being pulled into the drug model. Products were disappearing. Prices were rising.

There was a citizen rebellion. Congress held broad hearings. And they passed the "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, 1994", classifying natural health products as foods — because that’s what most of them are. Vital nutrients. Foods.

Under DSHEA, natural supplements in the U.S. are deemed safe by law. The FDA cannot remove a product from the market without real evidence that the specific product poses a specific risk. No pre-approval required. No license required.

The result: American natural health products are roughly one-quarter the price of Canadian equivalents. Canadians are free to import those unregulated American products. But no one can legally claim that the Canadian products — which have been through Health Canada’s expensive, burdensome approval process — are any safer.

We have spent over a billion dollars in taxpayer money on a regulatory system that has made vital nutrients unaffordable for low-income Canadians, driven companies and products out of existence, and produced no demonstrable safety benefit over the unregulated American alternative.

What the Law Should Say

The Charter of Health Freedom is a piece of proposed legislation. It doesn’t ask for deregulation. It doesn’t ask for the elimination of fraud protection, adulteration standards, or good manufacturing practices. Those are reasonable and everyone agrees with them.

What it asks is simpler: codify the health rights the courts already say we have. Remove natural health products from Health Canada’s jurisdiction. Create a Ministry of Wellness with a mandate to protect and promote access to natural health. Stop treating vital nutrients as presumptively illegal.

157,057 Canadians have signed the paper petition which is the third largest in Canadian history.

Subcribe to the NHPPA email at nhppa.org to learn more and to participate in NHPPA campaigns to protect your access to natural remedies.

Because the law as it stands says you need government permission to address your own illness. That you cannot be told the truth about what might help you. That the practitioners who could cure you can be convicted for doing so.

That is the law. And it needs to change.

Shawn Buckley is a constitutional lawyer and president of the Natural Health Product Protection Association. Learn more at nhppa.org.

From my work at Vitality Magazine.

It is a huge win to get Bill 224 past second reading and into Committee. But will it make a difference?

For the first time in a long time it appears that we are making progress in protecting access to our natural remedies. On March 10, Bill 224 passed second reading. Bill 224 moves essential nutrients and natural remedies out of the therapeutic product class of drugs. This therapeutic product class is restrictive, designed to regulate the most dangerous drugs such as Thalidomide and Vioxx.

So it is a huge win to get Bill 224 past second reading and into Committee. But will it make a difference?

After posting on social media about the win with Bill 224, I received the following comment:

Shawn, these developments risk giving the uninformed hope that the country and its parliamentary system is potentially viable/salvageable. They are still poisoning children the instant they are born (childhood vaccine schedule), notwithstanding recent studies and the U.S. RICO case.

Are Canadians Being Compelled to Defy the Law?

This question deserves to be answered. If Parliament will not grant us the ability to freely access natural remedies, then are we wasting our time? If Parliament will not listen to us, then is our only option to defy Parliament if we wish to remain healthy — which means defying the law?

Most of us are already doing this to some extent by purchasing black market products such as Ivermectin and Fenbendazole. There is a resurgence of small producers of natural remedies that are unlicensed. These small producers cannot, or will not, comply with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed by Parliament. They are playing a game of whack-a-mole with Health Canada. When Health Canada identifies one of them, Health Canada whacks them to take them out. Another then pops up to fulfill the need in Canada for their products. These black market suppliers only exist because Canadians support them.

So can we work with Parliament? That depends on Parliament’s intentions. If you want to know the intention of Parliament, and their enforcement arm Health Canada, look at their actions. Actions speak louder than words.

Health Canada’s History of Bias Against Natural Remedies

In the 1980s and 1990s as natural remedies rose in popularity, Health Canada began attacking them. So many products were being taken away from consumers that we rebelled. Health Minister Allan Rock backed down and asked the Standing Committee on Health to advise the government on how to regulate natural remedies.

In the U.S., Congress had already held hearings on how to regulate natural remedies. They passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, 1994, which classed natural remedies as food. This law also deems natural remedies to be safe.

After extensive hearings, in 1998 the Standing Committee on Health recommended that natural remedies should not be regulated as chemical drugs. They recognized that Canadians wanted increased access to natural remedies.

In 2004, Health Canada imposed the Natural Health Product Regulations. These are chemical drug style regulations. In other words, our Natural Health Products (NHPs) became reclassified as drugs. As a result, it is illegal to sell a NHP without Health Canada’s permission in the form of a license. It is illegal to sell vital nutrients needed to survive without Health Canada’s permission. Vital nutrients and natural remedies are deemed by Canadian law to be unsafe. Therefore safety must be proven.

Canada’s approach is the opposite of the American approach. In the U.S., essential nutrients and natural remedies are deemed by law to be safe. There is no need for government pre-approval.

The strict Canadian Regulations have made NHPs in Canada more expensive than the same products in the U.S. This has made essential nutrients unaffordable for many Canadians.

In the way they apply the Regulations, Health Canada is killing the natural health community with a thousand cuts. Manufacturers are constantly having to deal with ever stricter requirements and bureaucratic harassment.

Recently, Health Canada came out with the Self-Care Framework to regulate NHPs exactly the same as chemical drugs. When implemented, this will effectively eliminate most of our NHPs.

In my 32 years of dealing with Health Canada, their actions have consistently worked towards limiting our access to NHPs. So we can be confident that Health Canada wants to eliminate NHPs as much as is politically possible. This is why we fight.

As we fight we constantly lose ground. Even our current “win” in getting Bill C-224 into Committee is an attempt to get some ground back.

Back to the question: are we “giving the uninformed hope that the country and its parliamentary system is potentially viable/salvageable?” I am afraid of the answer. I clearly believe that there is an agenda behind Health Canada’s efforts to restrict NHPs as much as is politically possible. Parliament has been unresponsive, and has only paused Health Canada’s agenda when there has been intense political pressure.

Because the access we do have to NHPs saves lives, I will apply pressure for as long as I can to keep as much access as is politically possible. At the same time, we have crossed the line where Canadians should always be well stocked on vital NHPs. We have crossed the line where it is reasonable to assume that we will lose our legal access to NHPs, and will have to rely on black market sources.

Shawn Buckley, LLB, is a lawyer who has been conducting legal advocacy for natural health products (NHPs) for 30 years, and the president and founder of the Natural Health Product Protection Association (NHPPA). Visit nhppa.org

What if the healthcare system you’ve trusted your entire life was never actually designed to make you well?

That’s not a comfortable question. But once you understand how the drug approval process works, where our nutritional guidelines actually came from, and why your doctor has never once mentioned the natural remedy that could have solved your problem in 24 hours, you won’t be able to unsee it.

This isn’t about blaming individual doctors. Most of them genuinely want to help you. This is about a system that was architected — deliberately and methodically — to keep you sick, dependent, and medicated for life.

Let me show you exactly how it works.

Recommended Daily Allowances: Designed for D-Day, Not for Life

You’ve seen RDA — Recommended Daily Allowance — on vitamin bottles and food labels. You probably assumed it represented the amount you need to be healthy.

It doesn’t. Not even close.

Here’s where RDAs actually come from: In preparation for D-Day in World War II, military planners needed to know the minimum nutrients required for a healthy 20-year-old male to remain functional for two weeks. Not healthy. Not thriving. Just capable of pulling a trigger for 14 days — after which they could collapse and spend two months in a hospital.

That is the origin of our Recommended Daily Allowances.

And here’s the legal reality: it is illegal in Canada to sell you a supplement above the RDA. The maximum dose Health Canada will permit is the amount that every single Canadian — including a four-pound premature infant — could take every day of their lives without a single adverse reaction.

The result? The legal maximum dose of Vitamin D you can purchase is 2,000 IU. That’s essentially nothing. Don’t even bother.

We have made it illegal to be healthy in Canada. That is not an accident.

The Censorship System: What You’re Not Allowed to Know

Let me walk you through how the information blackout works, because it’s more sophisticated than most people realize.

I was involved in a federal court case against Health Canada. Their expert witness — a psychiatrist who runs a company that gets psychiatric drugs approved — testified under oath about the antidepressant approval process.

He told me: to get an antidepressant approved, he needs to provide Health Canada with two double-blind clinical trials showing the drug works. Simple enough. Except he also told me that he now automatically runs eight trials to get those two.

The other six? They might show the drug is no better than a sugar pill. They might show the sugar pill outperforms the drug. They might show the drug works but comes with alarming safety signals. It doesn’t matter.

It is illegal for the pharmaceutical company to share those six failed trials with you.

It is also illegal for them to share the two successful trials — though researchers can publish them. And researchers, whether by contract terms or professional incentive, publish only the successful ones.

Professor Alan Cassels at the University of Victoria has presented evidence that antidepressants taken as directed are the third leading cause of death in Canada. Professor Peter Gøtzsche at the University of Copenhagen — a medical doctor and academic — goes further, arguing that pharmaceutical drugs are the leading cause of death in Western nations.

Now flip this around. Empower Plus — a vitamin and mineral supplement — has over 30 published, peer-reviewed journal studies. Funded by governments around the world, including the Alberta government. Published in the Journal of Psychiatry, the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. Showing real results for bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, ADHD, and autism.

It is illegal for the company that makes Empower Plus to share any of that research with you. All they can say is their approved label claim: “supports mental health and well-being.”

A drug with six failed trials and a mounting death toll gets to hide its failures. A supplement with thirty government-funded peer-reviewed studies is forbidden from sharing its successes.

This is not a broken system. This is the system working exactly as designed.

The Allopathic Model: A System Built to Never Cure You

There are many traditions of healing. Naturopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, nutritional therapy — virtually every healing tradition in human history has shared one goal: cure the patient. Identify the root cause. Address it. Send the patient home healthy.

The allopathic model — the one that dominates our government-funded healthcare system — operates on a fundamentally different principle. It does not attempt to cure. It manages symptoms. It reduces suffering by addressing the presentation of illness, not its cause.

After World War I, every province in Canada and every state in the United States passed laws that effectively outlawed all other healing traditions. Only allopathic medical doctors could legally “practice medicine” — a term defined so broadly it encompassed diagnosing, treating, recommending, and even advertising health solutions.

The other traditions were gone until the mid-1970s. And now they’re being attacked again.

Naturopathic doctor Annie Geno in Quebec was recently convicted of practicing medicine — simply for helping her patients. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. She is awaiting sentencing. Not because she harmed anyone. Not because she wasn’t qualified. Because she isn’t an allopathic MD.

Consider this real story. A young mother came to the medical system with restless leg syndrome — electric shock sensations in both legs every night, forcing her to walk the floors until dawn. Fatigued. Depressed. Unable to care for her two young children. Her doctor’s solution? A Parkinson’s drug. Lifelong. With devastating side effects.

She went to see a naturopathic doctor instead. The answer was magnesium. Within 24 hours, it was gone.

Any trained health food store employee would have known that. But the allopathic doctor — not because they didn’t care, but because the system they trained in doesn’t teach nutrition — reached for the prescription pad instead.

This is by design. The allopathic model and the chemical pharmaceutical industry are inseparable. You cannot impose a chemical drug system on a nation without first adopting a healing model that never actually heals. If doctors were trained to cure, the chemicals wouldn’t work. The entire economic model collapses.

Here is the logical conclusion: Government-funded healthcare is, by definition, the marketing and distribution arm for the chemical pharmaceutical industry. The only treatments approved for serious health conditions are novel chemicals that held patents when they were approved. The only way to access those treatments is through the government-funded system.

If Canadians voted on which healing model they wanted in their publicly funded healthcare system, no one would choose allopathic. We want to be cured. But we were never asked.

The editor of the New England Journal of Medicine — one of the most respected medical journals in the world — wrote a book concluding that most published medical research and the clinical guidelines derived from it cannot be trusted. She came to that conclusion slowly and reluctantly, after decades at the top of her field.

We are not fighting against medicine. We are fighting for the right to be cured.

Bill C-224: The Fight You Need to Join Right Now

In the 2023 federal budget — a spending bill, not a health policy bill — the government quietly moved natural health products into the “therapeutic products” category. This is the category designed for the most dangerous prescription drugs. Vioxx. Thalidomide.

The maximum fine for a violation went from $5,000 to $5 million per day.

The immediate effect has been a chill across the entire natural health industry. Health food stores that have been giving Canadians sound nutritional advice for decades are now afraid to speak. Naturopathic doctors are self-censoring. The advice that could save your life — the kind of advice that would tell you that restless leg syndrome responds to magnesium, not Parkinson’s drugs — is being silenced by the threat of financial annihilation.

Bill C-224 is a private member’s bill to move natural health products back out of the therapeutic products category. The Conservatives support it. The Bloc supports it. The NDP supports it. The Liberals do not.

We are on a razor’s edge. Three Conservative MPs have crossed the floor. The Liberals are one seat away from a majority. If this bill doesn’t pass second reading, it dies.

In the last Parliament, this bill made it to committee. At the final meeting, an NDP amendment was introduced that would have rendered the entire bill meaningless. We sent out an urgent alert. A quarter of a million e-letters were sent to the 12 members of the Standing Committee on Health. For the first time in Canadian parliamentary history, a committee member voted against their own amendment.

You have power. But only if you use it.

Visit NHPPA.org. In under five minutes, you can send an e-letter to your MP, the party leaders, the Minister of Health, and members of the Standing Committee on Health. The system auto-populates based on your postal code.

Personalize it. Change the subject line. Add a sentence in your own words. Then print it. Put it in an envelope. Mail it to your MP. You don’t even need a stamp — mail to Members of Parliament is postage-free.

One MP told me: if I receive 10 phone calls on a single issue, the entire office stops. Because they never get 10 calls on anything. Your voice is worth more than you think — precisely because so few people use it.

Sign the form here (it just takes 5 minutes!)

Sign Here!

We are the only organization in Canada doing this work and your help is critical.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and for helping Canada save our natural health products!

With grace and gratitude,

Shawn Buckley

Shawn Buckley is a constitutional lawyer and President of the Natural Health Product Protection Association. Visit NHPPA.org to take action on Bill C-224 and subscribe to the weekly newsletter.

By Shawn Buckley | NHPPA.org

In my opinion, Canada now has the most toxic food supply in the world.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s the logical conclusion when you look at what’s been systematically permitted and systematically hidden from the Canadian public over the past several decades.

And while Americans are beginning to clean up their food supply under new leadership, we’re moving in the opposite direction. So congratulations, Canada. We’re number one. Just not in the way anyone should be proud of.

The Nutrient Collapse Nobody Is Talking About

Before we even get to the toxins, we need to talk about what’s missing from our food.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been surveying the nutrient content of fruits, vegetables, and grains since around 1900. They publish serious studies roughly every four years. By 1949, they were already sounding the alarm, documenting a steady, measurable decline in the nutritional value of our food supply.

Their conclusion was stark: you could no longer maintain your health on the North American diet alone. They went further, mapping out which chronic illnesses would emerge from specific nutrient deficiencies. They were essentially predicting the chronic disease epidemic we’re living through right now.

We farm the same way in Canada. Those numbers apply to us.

So here we are, one of the most food-abundant societies in human history, and we are chronically malnourished. Not because we don’t have enough food. Because the food we have has been systematically stripped of what our bodies need to function.

And who is responsible for overseeing our food supply? Health Canada. And what has Health Canada done about this? Nothing. Not a word. No requirement that crops be fertilized to maintain essential nutrient levels. No alarm bells. No public health campaign.

Their number one job should be ensuring that the food Canadians eat actually nourishes us. Instead, they’ve been busy approving toxins.

Glyphosate: The Industrial Pipe Cleaner in Your Body

Here’s something most Canadians have never been told: glyphosate, the herbicide sprayed on virtually all non-organic crops, started its life as an industrial pipe cleaner. Companies used it to strip mineral buildup from pipes, the same way you might use CLR on your faucets.

Then someone noticed that when it spilled, it killed all the plants.

Here’s how it works: glyphosate is a chelator. It kills weeds by leaching the minerals out of them. The weeds die of malnutrition. The genetically modified crops survive because they’ve been engineered to withstand it, but that doesn’t mean the glyphosate hasn’t stripped a significant portion of their minerals too.

Every single person reading this has glyphosate in their body. It’s in all of us. And it continues to act as a chelator inside us, pulling out the very minerals we need to be healthy, disrupting our gut microbiome in the process.

So we’re not just eating food with fewer nutrients. We’re eating food that actively removes nutrients from our bodies.

The FDA under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has acknowledged glyphosate is toxic and should be banned. President Trump had to sign an order preventing an immediate ban because American agriculture has become so dependent on it — but at least the gears are in motion to phase it out. Meanwhile, Health Canada has said nothing.

There is also a perfect correlation between the rise of glyphosate use and the rise of autism. There are also correlations with increased EMF exposure and expanded vaccination schedules. I’m not claiming a single cause but when you understand that glyphosate destroys the gut microbiome, and when you see the emerging evidence that fecal matter transplants and targeted micronutrient supplementation (including government-funded peer-reviewed studies using products like Empower Plus) show real results with autism and ADHD, you have to ask: are we looking at a nutritional and gut health crisis masquerading as a neurological one?

The Legal Framework That Protects No One (Except the Corporations)

Here’s where it gets truly disturbing.

Canada used to have the Food and Drug Act and its regulations, accumulated wisdom built up over decades. If a dye was causing harm, the allowable amount was reduced. If a preservative was dangerous, it was restricted. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a body of knowledge that evolved over time.

Then they amended the Act to allow the Minister of Health to exempt any food or class of foods from those regulations. At first, the Minister had to be satisfied it was safe, and the exemption had to be published in the Canada Gazette. Imperfect, but at least transparent.

Then they amended it again. The exemptions no longer need to be published. And the Minister no longer needs to be satisfied that the food is safe.

I am a lawyer. I cannot tell you today whether a food you are eating in Canada actually complies with our food regulations. You cannot hire anyone to tell you that. The transparency is gone.

And while we’re on the subject of legal accountability, the Food and Drug Act is a criminal law. It exists because the federal government’s jurisdiction here comes from criminal law powers. You would expect that the companies responsible for 99.9% of the drugs in Canada, the major pharmaceutical corporations would face the overwhelming majority of charges under this Act.

I cannot find a single case where a major publicly traded pharmaceutical company like Pfizer has been charged with even a minor violation of the Food and Drug Act.

Not one.

Meanwhile, natural health product companies get pursued. The only pharmaceutical-adjacent cases I can find involve counterfeit Viagra (investigations initiated by Pfizer itself) and drug traffickers who cut narcotics with pharmaceutical compounds.

Vioxx killed people. The safety signals were there long before it was pulled from the market. Thalidomide. The list goes on. Not a single criminal charge.

Tell me that system is there for your health.

The Dye That Kills 40 Children a Year — And Is Perfectly Legal

Want a concrete example of how Health Canada weighs your safety?

To approve a food dye, so we can have orange popsicles or red candy, the standard is what’s called “ultra safe.” The definition of ultra safe is that it causes no more than one death per million people per year.

Canada has approximately 40 million people.

Health Canada will approve a dye for your children’s food if it kills no more than 40 children per year.

Let that sink in.

Bill C-224: The Fight You Need to Join Right Now

In the 2023 federal budget, a spending bill, not a health policy bill, the government quietly moved natural health products into the “therapeutic products” category. This is the category designed for the most dangerous prescription drugs. Vioxx. Thalidomide.

The maximum fine for a violation went from $5,000 to $5 million per day.

The immediate effect has been a chill across the entire natural health industry. Health food stores that have been giving Canadians sound nutritional advice for decades are now afraid to speak. Naturopathic doctors are self-censoring. The advice that could save your life — the kind of advice that would tell you that restless leg syndrome responds to magnesium, not Parkinson’s drugs, is being silenced by the threat of financial annihilation.

Bill C-224 is a private member’s bill to move natural health products back out of the therapeutic products category. The Conservatives support it. The Bloc supports it. The NDP supports it. The Liberals do not.

We are on a razor’s edge. Three Conservative MPs have crossed the floor. The Liberals are one seat away from a majority. If this bill doesn’t pass second reading, it dies.

In the last Parliament, this bill made it to committee. At the final meeting, an NDP amendment was introduced that would have rendered the entire bill meaningless. A Conservative MP filibustered to prevent the vote. We sent out an urgent alert. A quarter of a million e-letters were sent to the 12 members of the Standing Committee on Health. For the first time in Canadian parliamentary history, a committee member voted against their own amendment.

You have power. But only if you use it.

What You Can Do Right Now

Visit https://nhppa.org/bill224/ and sign our form or click the link below:

Sign Here!

In under five minutes, you can send an e-letter to your MP, the party leaders, the Minister of Health, and members of the Standing Committee on Health. The system auto-populates based on your postal code. You don’t need to know who your MP is. You don’t need to know parliamentary procedure.

Personalize it. Change the subject line. Add a sentence in your own words. A personalized letter carries more weight than a form letter.

Then print it. Put it in an envelope. Mail it to your MP. You don’t even need a stamp, mail to Members of Parliament is postage-free.

One MP told me: if I receive 10 phone calls on a single issue, the entire office stops. Because they never get 10 calls on anything. Your voice is worth more than you think, precisely because so few people use it.

Subscribe to our newsletter at NHPPA.org. We send one email per week. We tell you what’s happening and what you can do about it. We are the only organization in Canada doing this work. I wish I could point you to others. I can’t.

The Bottom Line

You cannot be healthy in Canada today without supplementing. Even if you eat organic. Even if you eat well. The nutrients have been depleted from our soil. Glyphosate is in your body right now, pulling out what little remains. The legal maximum doses of essential nutrients are set so low they are functionally useless. And the system that is supposed to protect you is actively working to keep you sick, dependent, and medicated.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the logical conclusion of following the money, reading the legislation, and watching who gets charged and who doesn’t.

The editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, wrote a book concluding that most published medical research and the clinical guidelines derived from it cannot be trusted. She came to that conclusion slowly and reluctantly, after decades at the top of her field.

We are not fighting against medicine. We are fighting for the right to access the full spectrum of healing traditions. We are fighting for the right to know the truth about what we put in our bodies. We are fighting for the right to be healthy.

That fight is happening right now, in the Canadian Parliament, on a bill that most Canadians have never heard of.

Now you have.

Again, please help us help you by clicking this link ( Sign Here! ) and take 5 minutes to sign the form.

With grace and gratitude,

Shawn

Shawn Buckley is a constitutional lawyer and President of the Natural Health Product Protection Association. Visit NHPPA.org to take action on Bill C-224 and subscribe to the weekly newsletter.