Federal Vaccine Mandate

General maritime and engineering discussion occurs on this board. Feel free to post newsbits, comments, ask questions about maritime matters and post your opinions.
Post Reply
Tanktop Cleaner
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:36 pm
Currently located: Nova Scotia

Federal Vaccine Mandate

Post by Dieseldude »

Have any forum members read the TC bulletin that was released Oct. 6 ?
"Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federally regulated transportation employees and travellers"
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-cana ... llers.html

People have many reasons to refrain from the injections including short term adverse reactions, long term health risks, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience issues, and legal, Constitutional, and Charter issues. Are you concerned about any of these matters ? According the Charter Section 7, we have the right to security of our person. Unconsented or coerced medical intervention is certainly a violation of that right. We learn in first aid training that people have the right to refuse intervention. We must ask consent before performing any first aid. Doctors always require that a patient sign a consent form before doing surgery. Doctors also must disclose and explain all risks associated with treatments. But our government ignores the most basic of legal requirements and ethics.

There have been thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of reactions reported in the CDC VAERS statistics amongst injection recipients.
We have no long term studies to establish safety, hence mandates fail scientific scrutiny regarding safety. This should be more than enough cause to allow individuals to make their own decisions, rather than be coerced. The argument that each of us have a responsibility to accept the injection to protect others from infection is quickly losing, as we read more reports of "breakthrough" cases. That is injected people who test positive for COVID. Risking self harm over a hypothetical threat to others defies common sense, safety, and science.

Will we see ships stacked when crew who assert their rights are not permitted to work ? It is possible that choke points in the system will develop. A lack of pilots and assist tug crew could see many ships remain at dockside and anchored outside harbours. A lack of support personnel such as marine traffic control due to many forced from their jobs would add to the problems. I have not found out if stevedores will be under the mandate, but if so, a shortage of them would slow the pace. Even Environment Canada meteorologic personnel who are crucial to shipping may be off the job.

Will crew be launching law suits against employers ? Will we see a further slow down of service within Transport Canada due to office staff who will be locked out ? Will we see chaos as companies attempt to solve crew shortages by demanding longer work periods and placing crew in unfamiliar positions ? Will travel to and from vessels be impaired by a lack of air non-injected travel personnel who will be forced off the job ? Will shipping companies suffer heavy losses due to consequences of the mandate?

The mandate could cause a host of many unforeseen problems that could throw the shipping industry into chaos, or at least a slow down. This of course would ripple through the economy as goods and materials remain undelivered. People could be stranded when ferries shut down. Will enough Coast Guard vessels have sufficient crew to sail and maintain safety operations at sea ? Vessel crew and other shipping industry staff who refuse injections could be stuck at home with no income.

Current figures indicate that about 30% of Canadians remain non-injected. If this typifies the shipping industry, a slow down is bound to occur. If you show up for work, but minimum manning is not achieved, your boat won't sail. With your ship in an unprofitable situation, it will be reduced to skeleton crew to keep the ship while it remains in port, and you could be sent home. The Oct. 30 deadline is only 20 days away as of this posting. This unprecedented situation poses a threat to not only the shipping industry, but the economy in general. In official strikes, bargaining options are available to which law applies, but in this situation, mechanism for orderly resolution does not seem to exist. It could be like a thousand spanners tossed into the works. A dangerous chain of events could develop as Oct. 30 approaches, or soon afterward. Has our government even considered these possibilities, and will they back down their demands ?

Tossing workers off the job as the economy tries to recover from almost two years of decline reaches a new low on the absurdity scale as industry complains of a labor shortage.

The Canadian Merchant Service Guild's latest web site publication on the matter is dated Sept. 28, nine days prior to the TC bulletin of Oct. 6. And due to this timing, contains little of value on the union's position. https://www.cmsg-gmmc.ca/index.php/en/h ... -2021/file

If anyone has feedback to offer, or would like to express how they plan to handle the situation, please offer your comments to the forum.
User avatar
The Dieselduck
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:41 pm
Currently located: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada (West Coast of Canada)

Re: Federal Vaccine Mandate

Post by The Dieselduck »

In my opinion, you do not have to take any vaccine or any other interventions you are not comfortable with. However, other people are equally entitled to their opinions, and more importantly safety in their workplaces. I am no scientist, so I resort to their counsel through the official channels, as much as possible; the overwhelming consensus from these professionals is that the benefits out weight the risks. For my situation, I have come to the conclusion that the benefits outweigh the risks, so I chose to be vaccinated, which in my particular situation makes my life easier. You do not have to, but I think you are responsible for your decisions, and you live with that. It takes courage to use your critical thinking skills these days, and stick to your convictions.

Karl Sagan provides us with these simple rules for critical thinking

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified.
Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
User avatar
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 3053
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: Federal Vaccine Mandate

Post by JK »

I finally have time to get back and respond.

Very briefly:
Who is covered under the jurisdiction of the federal government in Canada?

The federal health and safety legislation is commonly referred to as Canada Labour Code Part II and regulations under the Code. The Canada Labour Code also applies to employees of companies or sectors that operate across provincial or international borders. These businesses include:

airports and airlines
exploration and development of petroleum on lands subject to federal jurisdiction
ferries, port services, tunnels and bridges
grain elevators licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission, and certain feed mills and feed warehouses, flour mills and grain seed cleaning plants;
highway transport
many First Nations activities
radio and television broadcasting and cable systems
shipping and shipping services
telephone and telegraph systems
uranium mining and processing
Approximately 6% of the Canadian workforce falls under the OH&S jurisdiction of the federal government. The remaining 94% of Canadian workers fall under the legislation of the province or territory where they work.

Federally, in which TC is the regulatory body for marine:

A/ The federal health and safety legislation is commonly referred to as Canada Labour Code Part II and regulations under the Code. The Canada Labour Code also applies to employees of companies or sectors that operate across provincial or international borders.

B/In 2004 the Westray Bill passed, it establishes a legal duty for all persons "directing the work of others" to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of workers and the public

C/ due diligence means that employers shall take all reasonable precautions, under the particular circumstances, to prevent injuries or incidents in the workplace. This duty also applies to situations that are not addressed elsewhere in the occupational health and safety legislation. Reasonable precautions are also referred to as reasonable care. It refers to the care, caution, or action a reasonable person is expected to take under similar circumstances.

So, a company has the legal requirement to ensure that the health of their employees is not affected by going to work.
Unless there is a valid health issue with the vaccine, that people can't have it, then legally the vaccine is required.

You can and should read about your rights as an employee/employer here:


BTW, you may want to stay away from kids who can't get a shot.
Bilge Dweller
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:51 am
Currently located: Newfoundland

Re: Federal Vaccine Mandate

Post by Chummyjigger »

Something stinks with all of this mandatory forced vaccine mandate, with a 99.7% survival rate, that has never been peer reviewed by an independent body.

I have to travel to various locations to join my vessel so I’m being pressured to get the JAB so airports are not an issue. Hopefully I can drive.

I wish I was in a position to take time off work or retire.
Tanktop Cleaner
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:36 pm
Currently located: Nova Scotia

Re: Federal Vaccine Mandate

Post by Dieseldude »

Chummyjigger is certainly within his rights to refrain from the anti COVID injection. I wish him well with his rightful pursuit of his livelihood.

This posting refers to the anti COVID injections as "injections"; as they are do not meet the definition of "vaccine".

Vaccine: "A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration to an individual stimulates antibody production or cellular immunity against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

Recently, various "authorities" have falsely broadened the definition to include mRNA injections. Because they do not contain any weakened or killed pathogens, or structures of them, they cannot be considered as vaccines. Semantic manipulation is indicative of fraud. If a scheme is difficult or impossible due to a conventional word definition, the solution is to rewrite the definition.

Without a lengthy technical description, mRNA injections contain genetic material that causes the genetic "machinery" of human cells to produce a synthetic protein similar to one found on the COVID-19 virus. After the cells do this, then the immune system produces antibodies to that protein. The initial mechanism triggered by the mRNA has nothing to do with the means by which true vaccines work. The false nomenclature is a fraud perpetrated by manufacturers that confuses the public. It is false and misleading advertising. Calling them gene therapy agents, which is what they really are, would have been a hard sell to the public who might have viewed them with suspicion. Who would volunteer for something as new and unknown as genetic manipulation of their body? Regulatory problems with the new technology were solved by naming them with the name of old technology. Mislabeling them as vaccines enables manufactures to escape all liability for harms that they cause, and has enabled them to get emergency use authorization. It certainly does not instill confidence in a product to know that the manufacturer has legal immunity to any harm that the product may cause. You cannot sue the manufacturer if you suffer any injury, nor can your family or estate sue if you die.

JK has misconstrued the Westray Law to suit the mNRA injection agenda. Rightly applied, the Westray law actually is on the side of employees who wish not put their life and health at risk to the experimental injections. It is well known that thousands of deaths and serious reactions have resulted in injection recipients. These have been documented by the CDC in their VAERS statistics. Any death or reaction that occurs within hours, days, or weeks of an injection is a smoking gun. Injection proponents often attempt to discredit VAERS, but the VARS record must be thoroughly investigated to establish safety. Neglecting this is obviously negligence. Had the Westray tragedy not been investigated, we would never have known that the root cause of the disaster was a systematic disregard for safety by management. We would not have the Westray Law to deter employers from such negligence. The injections have had no long term trials to establish safety over an extended time. Until proven safe, they must be considered dangerous. For employers to disregard known safety problems with mNRA injections and ignore the reality of no long term testing is another reckless disregard, as was the cause of lost lives at Westray.

I know of a man who survived Westray. He lived by getting out while the getting was good. He recognized the danger and quit well before the mine exploded. For any readers who have seen the training film about the Piper Alpha disaster, there is a broader lesson than just dealing with a fire at sea. Crew had been instructed through official channels to muster in a room and await rescue. Those who did this perished in the flames. Others recognized the problem with that idea. They knew that their only chance of rescue was to make their way to the sea. The flames were advancing too fast to wait for rescuers to board and find them. Many who escaped to the sea were rescued by boats. Breaking with with official instructions got them saved.

Any employer who by coercion puts an employee at risk of their health is violating the Westray Law. An employer's responsibility for employee safety has limits such as procedure, equipment, and physical conditions that they can reasonably control. This responsibility cannot include unwanted invasive medical intervention that has not been proven safe, and that would violate worker Charter rights. Some of the more common injection reactions are blood clots, myocarditis/pericarditis (dangerous swelling of tissue surrounding the heart), and severe allergic reactions. VAERS has recorded 16 310 deaths as of Oct. 2, 2021. Coercing workers to accept such risk only adds a whole new set of hazards to the job.

It must be noted that mRNA injections do not guarantee that a recipient will not contract COVID-19 nor transmit it to others. Numerous “breakthrough cases” (persons diagnosed with COVID who have received the injection) have been reported. Injections are false assurance. Claims that they prevent the disease are misconception or fraud. Proponents claim that they prevent severity of infection, but since most diagnosed cases are mild; this is largely a moot point.

There may appear to be a weakness in the law that would only enable recourse after the fact, when it would not be possible to obtain a remedy. If one suffers irreversible harm or dies, it is beyond the ability of courts or defendants in a law suit to restore health to a complainant or to restore the life of a deceased victim through legal action of survivors. However coercion of a person that interferes their rights is violation of the Criminal Code 423 (1) "Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,"

According to this, an employer cannot compel an employee to accept a medical intervention against their will. An employer cannot break an employment contract by denying the employee access to their work place for abstaining from a medical intervention that would violate their Charter Section 7 right to security of your person. The employer would be criminally liable and would be financially liable for lost wages.

All Canadian law must conform to the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If it violates these, it is unlawful, and is of no effect. Section 7 of the Charter guarantees the right to security of the person. This means that every citizen has the right to refuse any unwanted bodily interventions. Any such intervention would be assault under the Criminal Code. As noted in the first posting on this subject, any medical intervention requires the recipient's informed consent as taught in first aid training, and this is carefully observed by physicians when doing any surgery or invasive procedure.

There is no legislation that allows an employer to terminate an employee for not getting a COVID-19 shot. If an employer so does, they are inviting a wrongful dismissal claim, as well as a claim for a human rights code violation. For those employees who are influenced, pressured or coerced by their employer to have the mRNA injection, and suffer any adverse consequences as a result of the injection, the employer, and its directors, officers, and those in positions carrying out these measures on behalf of the employer, will be opening themselves up to personal civil liability, and potential personal criminal liability, under the Nuremberg Code, the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act of Canada.

Infection rate statistics lack scientific scrutiny due to the high false positive rate of PCR testing. Test inventor and Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis, clearly indicated that the PCR testing device was never created to test for corona viruses. Mullis stated, “the PCR test can be used to find almost anything, in anybody. If you can amplify one single molecule, then you can find it because that molecule is nearly in every single person”.

Current PCR testing, set at higher amplifications, produce up to 97% false positives. So, any imposed emergency measures based on it are unwarranted. The PCR test operates in repeated cycles. Each cycle doubles the "concentration" of target material, which is not viable virus, but genetic particles that could be from a virus that is long dead. And there is no guarantee that particles detected are from the COVID virus. Since each test cycle is double the sensitivity of the previous, it is an exponential scale. More cycles increase the chance of false positives. Experts disagree on what number of cycles is reasonable. It is common practice for labs to run cycles into the high 30's and even into the 40's. Since each cycle doubles the RNA copies, 40 cycles means ONE TRILLION-fold amplification (2 to the 40th power)! Without an agreed standard, the test is open to abuse. Statistics reported in the media always exclude the cycle threshold figure, making them meaningless. Claims of huge numbers of COVID cases and COVID caused deaths are based upon extremely weak evidence. Ask a forensic scientist if the PCR test would meet the scrutiny of the laws of evidence in a court of law. PCR testing cannot establish with certainty whether a person has COVID-19. At best, it can only indicate a probability as to whether they do. Hence we hear of meaningless "symptom-less cases". With no symptoms, there is no evidence that they were infected with any disease. Without clinical diagnosis, there is no scientific basis to declare a person infected. Since COVID symptom are the same as for common ailments such as colds, influenza, and common pneumonia, even clinical diagnosis can be inconclusive. So both advanced PCR technology and basic clinical methods leave us without an accurate knowledge of the extent of the COVID phenomenon. It could be that many people who presented symptoms and were diagnosed with COVID really suffered from influenza A or B.

Dr. Fauci, Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, admitted that the widely used PCR test detects harmless fragments of the corona virus, resulting in many false-positive cases that result in overstating the threat. He acknowledged that at 35 cycles or higher, the chances of the test being accurate are “minuscule.”

In Nov. 2020, a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests are unreliable. On Dec. 14, 2020, the WHO admitted the PCR test has a "problem" at high amplifications as it detects dead cells from old viruses, giving a false positive. Feb 16, 2021, BC Health Officer Bonnie Henry, admitted PCR tests are unreliable. On April 8, 2021, the Austrian court ruled the PCR test was unsuited for COVID testing. On April 8, 2021, a German Court ruled against PCR testing stating, “the test cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not, because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter and living matter”. On May 8, 2021, the Swedish Public Health Agency stopped PCR testing for the same reason. On May 10th, 2021, Manitoba’s Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist, Dr. Jared Bullard testified under cross-examination in a trial before the court of the Queen's Bench in Manitoba, that PCR test results do not verify infectiousness, and were never intended to be used to diagnose respiratory illnesses.

Considering that diagnosed cases of COVID-19 have a survival rate of better than 99%. And considering that accurate statistics on infection rates are do not exist; the "vaccine mandates" are at best a grossly disproportionate over reaction to an ailment that has caused no more deaths than common influenza. At worst they are a fraud perpetrated by government on a misinformed public. There is no credible evidence that COVID-19 is so great a threat that there is any cause to subject people to a risky new medical intervention by coercion that violates Charter rights, criminal law, and international law such as the Nuremberg Code.

A vicious circle fed by various entities has exaggerated a problem. Big media have reported frightening, and sensational stories. Members of the public, out of fear have made demands on government to remedy a perceived threat. Governments have abused power to force extreme senseless measures to mitigate the perceived threat. Pharmaceutical companies and suppliers of goods and services have capitalized on the situation, pedaling a bill of goods that is needless and sometimes dangerous as "remedies" to the perceived problem. Peoples' rights have been infringed which has led to losses, harms, and suffering including material, financial, physical, emotional, and psychological. When various “solutions” have failed, government has responded by intensifying their existing measures, and has schemed new ones. The situation has only worsened as government has failed to apply sense and wisdom in the midst frenzied public panic. Political leaders and bureaucrats have exploited the situation to expand their power and exert harsher control over the people.

Ambitious bureaucrats seeking to impress political bosses have schemed many ill thought measures. A classic example is mandates for masks that only leak any pathogen laden sputum droplets past gaps between face and mask, and through media pores which are many times larger than droplets. Such measures are believed effective by many people who lack knowledge of even basic physics. But those with knowledge to recognize the illusion are scorned as “anti maskers”. As engineers, we insure that engine air filters are sized and fitted for no leakage past edges. We insure that media pore specs meet manufacturer standards. Another laughable one was the imposition of curfews by the Quebec government. Do they expect us to believe that viruses only hitch rides on new hosts between the hours of 20:00 and 05:00? When government and experts who prostitute services to them insult our intelligence on even simple matters, why should we trust them on complex matters such as high technology bodily injections?

Anyone including lay persons and well credentialed experts who dare question the extremists in government and their hired institutional experts get dissed with such labels as "conspiracy theorists", "anti vaxxers", "right wing extremists", "flat earthers” and even "terrorists". Perhaps the greatest danger is the vast numbers of ill informed people who have fallen for official propaganda. Many have adopted an attitude of contempt toward those who resist the hazards of injections, and their rights are further trampled by this mob. The mandates themselves are an act of hatred by our government. Politicians have revelled in the tyrannical power that they usurp over innocent people. Peaceful people who chose to live without taking unreasonable health risks surely do not deserve such malicious treatment. Denial for no just reason of one’s right to exchange one’s labour to support one’s self is cruel and unusual punishment. This violates Charter Section 12 “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Any reasonable person understands that the COVID situation is not such a threat as to warrant denial of rights and freedoms protected by the Charter. Such an extreme measure as to coerce medical intervention that has potential to harm is certainly not justified in our free and democratic society. Many people have failed to understand that purpose of a Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to restrain government from abusing power. If government begins to usurp power beyond these constraints, a nation is in danger of falling to unlimited tyranny. These documents were not written for us to hang on a wall and to brag to the world what a free people we are. There are serious consequences to any infringement upon them.

This is not a good time to be ship owner, travel operator, a restaurateur or a manager for such businesses. The “vaccine mandates” encumber business owners and their managers with unlawful obligations to government. Yet business people face severe legal penalties for violating the rights of, and committing crimes against employees and customers.

Of special note in the past three days, some 20 000 Quebec healthcare workers who have refrained from the injections have won their first show down with Premier Legault. They were scheduled to be forced off the job today. Fearing a chaotic shut down of many hospital beds, and cancellation of many surgeries and procedures, Premier Legault wisely relented. He has extended the deadline by 30 days. But Legault will once again face the same self inflected wound. Those same workers who were willing to sacrifice their jobs in favor of their safety and principles are not likely to to suddenly become Premier pleasers. They owe him no favors after being pushed to the brink. By November 30, Legault will either again relent, or he will become very unpopular as he faces the wrath of people deprived of health care that they expect and pay for out of their taxes. The people of Quebec are not known for their passiveness when grievously offended by government.
Post Reply