Featured Image
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau addresses Canadians from outside his home in Ottawa on the federal government's response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Feb. 2, 2021.CPAC/ Youtube video screen grab

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

CANADA, March 3, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s remarks that there are “pros and cons” to COVID-19 “immunity passports” shows that he has some openness to a measure that would ultimately violate “Canadians rights and freedoms,” a vaccine watchdog group is warning.

“The idea of immunity passports, such is one that has been talked about for a while, there are potential pros and cons that I’ve heard on various, various issues surrounding it,” Trudeau told reporters on February 26 during a press conference announcing Canada’s approval of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. “Our position as a government is always going to be to rely on the best advice of experts in terms of how we can move forward,” he added.

Trudeau’s remarks surrounding the idea of COVID-19 “immunity passports” for Canadians came from a question from a reporter last Friday in light of Quebec’s Health Minister, Christian Dube, recently saying he is open to the idea of “immunity passports” for his province.

However, Trudeau’s response to the question in French differed slightly from the English version. It notably included the phrase “negative consequences” for those who don’t have the passport.

“I think it’s something people have been talking about for a while now I think it’s important to follow recommendations from experts at every stage, there might be negative consequences if you want benefits but don’t have this health passport but we're going to follow public health recommendations,” said Trudeau in French as translated to English.

The president of a leading Canadian vaccine watchdog group told LifeSiteNews there is no “Medical Justification” for “immunity passports” in Canada, saying they would violate Canadians rights and freedoms if implemented.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
  Show Petition Text
1082032 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1100000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

People of goodwill can disagree about the safety, efficacy and religious implications of a new vaccine for the coronavirus.

But, everyone should agree on this point:

No government can force anyone who has reached legal adulthood to be vaccinated for the coronavirus. Equally, no government can vaccinate minors for the coronavirus against the will of their parents or guardians.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which urges policymakers at every level of government to reject calls for mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

Fear of a disease - which we know very little about, relative to other similar diseases - must not lead to knee-jerk reactions regarding public health, nor can it justify supporting the hidden agenda of governmental as well as non-governmental bodies that have apparent conflicts of interest in plans to restrict personal freedoms. 

The so-called "public health experts" have gotten it wrong many times during the current crisis. We should not, therefore, allow their opinions to rush decision-makers into policies regarding vaccination.

And, while some people, like Bill Gates, may have a lot of money, his opinion and that of his NGO (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) - namely, that life will not return to normal till people are widely vaccinated - should not be permitted to influence policy decisions on a coronavirus vaccination program.

Finally, we must also not allow the rush by pharmaceutical companies to produce a new coronavirus vaccine to, itself, become an imperative for vaccination.

Unwitting citizens must not be used as guinea pigs for New World Order ideologues, or Big Pharma, in pursuit of a vaccine (and, profits) which may not even protect against future mutated strains of the coronavirus.

And it goes without saying that the production of vaccines using aborted babies for cell replication is a total non-starter, as the technique is gravely immoral.

However, if after sufficient study of the issue, a person who has reached the age of majority wishes to be vaccinated with a morally produced vaccine, along with his children, that is his business.

But we cannot and will not permit the government to make that decision for us.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition, urging policymakers at all levels of government to reject mandatory coronavirus vaccination.


Bill Gates: Life won’t go back to ‘normal’ until population 'widely vaccinated' -

COVID-19 scare leads to more digital surveillance, talk of mandatory vaccine 'tattoos' for kids' -

Trudeau says no return to ‘normal’ without vaccine: 'Could take 12 to 18 months' -

Trudeau mulls making coronavirus vaccine mandatory for Canadians -

US bishop vows to ‘refuse’ COVID-19 vaccine if made from ‘aborted fetal tissue' -

** While LifeSite opposes immorally-produced vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines, we do not have a position on any particular coronavirus vaccines produced without such moral problems. We realize many have general concerns about vaccines, but also recognize that millions of lives have been saved due to vaccines.

*** Photo Credit:

  Hide Petition Text

“The real risk of ‘vaccine immunity passports’ is the violation of our rights and freedoms. The unstated intention of such a document would be used to restrict access to travel and services of those individuals not partaking in this medical experiment. Such arbitrary restrictions would be a clear violation of our inherent freedoms in Canada,” Ted Kuntz, president of Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), a not-for-profit society founded by families who have suffered from vaccine reactions or injuries, told LifeSiteNews.

Kuntz stated that in considering vaccine “immunity passports” Trudeau is “demonstrating his support of coercive measures to compel vaccination upon unwilling citizens.”

“While this may not be a vaccine mandate in the strictest sense, it is effectively a vaccine mandate in practice. Any mandating of vaccines cannot be tolerated. Vaccination carries risks including permanent disability and death. Where there is risk, there must be choice,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

Kuntz also mentioned that there is “no medical justification for implementing ‘vaccine immunity passports’” in Canada.

“To do so fails to recognize the limitations of vaccine-induced immunity, and the COVID vaccines in particular. The assumption Trudeau makes is that vaccination equalizes immunization. This is not the case,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

“Unlike the immunity conferred by natural infection, which is most often life-long, the immunity conferred by vaccines is limited and temporary. Vaccine-induced immunity wanes after years or even months and therefore ‘confirmation of vaccination’ does not mean ‘confirmation of immunity.’”

In January,  Trudeau said his government did not plan to implement COVID-19 “immunity passports” in Canada, saying at the time they are “an interesting idea” but could have “real divisive impacts” and is “fraught with challenges.”

COVID-19 “immunity passports” have been welcomed by some European Union countries such as Sweden and Denmark.

Recently, the president of the European Union Commission Ursula von der Leyen said she is behind an EU-wide “vaccine passport” program. 

At the provincial level in Canada, the idea of COVID-19 “immunity passports” was raised in Ontario in late 2020.

In December of 2020,  Christine Elliott, the health minister of Ontario reaffirmed a second time that residents of Canada’s most populous province will need “for lots of reasons” a yet-to-be-determined type of proof that they received the COVID-19 vaccine.

In April of 2020, Trudeau said that he would need time to “reflect” on the possibility of making a coronavirus vaccine mandatory in Canada.

In Canada, vaccines are not mandatory at the federal level as each province is responsible for their healthcare delivery. At the provincial level, some provinces such as Ontario and New Brunswick have made certain vaccines mandatory via legislation, with a few exceptions, for children to attend public schools. 

Legal group warns ‘immunity passports’ would most likely violate the charter

There are questions as to whether a vaccine “immunity passport” would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular Section 2, which involves one’s conscience rights; Section 6 regarding mobility rights; and Section 7, which protects one’s “right to life, liberty and security of the person.”

Lisa Bildy, a lawyer for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), told LifeSiteNews last year that for a government to “threaten or mandate liberty restrictions” against Canadians who do not want a COVID-19 vaccine is indeed a violation of one’s charter rights.

“The government should make the Covid-19 vaccine available to all Canadians who want it, starting with those who are the most vulnerable. That should be the end of their involvement in the personal health decisions of Canadians,” Bildy told LifeSiteNews.

“To do otherwise, and particularly to threaten or mandate liberty restrictions on Canadians who make the perfectly reasonable assessment that they do not need or want such a vaccine, is a violation of the rights to freedom of conscience and belief, mobility rights, and the right to life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter. If there’s no solid data on transmission, then there is simply no rational basis for the infringement of these rights.”

Other freedom groups speak out against ‘immunity passports’

Objections to “immunity passports” for COVID-19 vaccines have been raised before in Canada by groups other than the JCCF or VCC.

In December, the left-leaning Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) gave a warning to Trudeau about “immunity passports.”

The group called them a “wrongheaded” solution which if implemented could end up dividing people into “categories” causing “abuse, discrimination, and oppression.”

Currently, there are three COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in Canada. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which both are abortion-tainted, were approved months ago.

The abortion-tainted vaccine from AstraZeneca was just recently approved for use in Canada for those over 18 despite Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization saying it should not be given to those over 65.

In December of 2020, Health Canada put out a warning to Canadians that they should avoid the Pfizer jab if they are allergic to any of its listed ingredients.

About a month ago, the Trudeau government announced that they had signed a deal with pharmaceutical giant Novavax, to permit them to make its abortion tainted COVID-19 vaccine in Montreal.

At the same press conference announcing the deal with Novavax, Trudeau also said that he had signed another deal with Precision NanoSystems.

Trudeau said during the announcement of the Novavax and NanoSystems that “Vaccines work,” and also that they are “safe and effective.”

“When it’s my turn, I’ll be ready to roll up my sleeve and get my doses. These vaccines save lives, so I hope you’ll join me,” said Trudeau.

As for the VCC, in the summer of 2020, they announced a lawsuit against Trudeau’s Liberal Government along with Ford’s Government of Ontario to hold them “accountable” for their “overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19.”

The group also said it is seeking that the defendants do not force any mandatory COVID-19 vaccine on Canadians as it would violate one’s rights under the Canadian constitution.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.