A rare bit of good news on the COVID file, and a new gene discovered in British Columbia, Canada. Plus, an update on the new B.A.86 variant, and much, much more!
00:03:08.420You've got other cases that have popped up today where some of the churches and pastors that have had charges applied to them are finding themselves no longer facing prosecution.
00:03:20.260And then you also had this decision that came about in an Alberta case just a couple of weeks ago, I think it was, that was basically a 90-page decision ruling that provincial health orders were invalid because they were in violation of the Public Health Act.
00:03:37.720Now, the way this story has been reported is that there are a bunch of people that are going to find themselves getting a refund on their fines, that they may find themselves unconvicted of this.
00:03:49.820And if you read this on the surface, it sounds like it's great. It's a victory. It's a blow against these COVID lockdowns.
00:03:55.820We'll talk about that in a few moments time with lawyer Sarah Miller about whether that is, in fact, something that people should be jumping for joy about.
00:04:03.680But right now, I have to begin by saying, here we go again.
00:04:09.460This little past chapter of Canadian history that I was just talking about, the COVID era, that I think has long been over.
00:04:17.320Some people think we've never left it and are wanting to keep us in this in perpetuity.
00:04:22.320Have you seen these headlines warning of the new variant?
00:04:24.920It's been a while since we've had a new variant, have we?
00:04:57.420But this is the new variant that has some experts, you know, experts, we've all learned of their infinite expertise over the last few years, warning that we are about to see, as this one article says here, a big, big wave, a big, giant wave is coming up.
00:05:15.500That's not like the technical language, but it's kind of close there.
00:05:18.720In global news, Canada likely at the start of a new COVID-19 wave.
00:05:27.220Who knows? It depends whether we are allowing the sensible types to govern our response to it or whether we're going to outsource public health to people like Dr. Nilly Kaplan-Mirth in Ottawa or David Fistman in Ontario and all of these other folks that are very fanatical about wanting to keep us in COVID-stan in perpetuity.
00:05:47.100Now, there are some folks that want masks to return ASAP.
00:05:50.980They want them to use the medical language-backed stat,
00:05:53.380such as a group of health professionals in British Columbia
00:05:56.620that is urging for a reinstatement to mask mandates,
00:06:00.060not just in hospitals and healthcare environments,
00:06:02.940but in schools as well, because they don't want the triple-demic.
00:06:06.760Do you remember the triple-demic of RSV, COVID, and influenza?
00:06:10.920So they think that we need masks to make a comeback in schools and hospitals.
00:06:15.560You had some people that, believe it or not, went to their MLA's office to protest, to protest for masks, like people that wore their masks, which they have a voluntary right to do as citizens, but are going to an MLA to protest to make everyone else wear them.
00:06:35.280And, of course, when the pro-COVID people convene, it's always a peaceful, calm protest, right?
00:06:41.940stay here with us and let's continue and let's continue to
00:10:49.960for daring to say that he isn't a fan of CBC,
00:10:53.120which, if anything, should give the guy a medal for going and saying that in British Columbia,
00:10:58.380because it's probably a very lonely community in British Columbia for someone who doesn't
00:11:02.340exactly like CBC and all the stuff they're pushing on people. So all of this is to say
00:11:07.640that we are right now on the cusp of a big opportunity here, a big opportunity to stand
00:11:13.880firm against this. And I think anytime this comes up, people have the obligation to say,
00:11:19.080you know what, you can mandate whatever you want. I am not doing it. I am not going along with it.
00:11:25.220And governments are going to very quickly find themselves utterly humiliated if they start
00:11:30.520flirting with mandates that have no legitimacy whatsoever. And the one thing we have now that
00:11:36.140we didn't have in 2020 is the benefit of hindsight. And I would specifically look at Sweden, which has
00:11:43.140been one of the most important cases for analysis of COVID restrictions because Sweden was running
00:11:49.620an experiment effectively, like everyone else in the world was, but it went to a bit of a different
00:11:54.460world than most other countries did. And Sweden was the restriction mandate control group. It was
00:12:01.340the place we could look at and see what does a world look like without mandates and without
00:12:05.900restrictions. And if you look at Sweden's outcomes, even now, and we've just seen as recently as
00:12:11.120today, I think some new information about this. Sweden should have been, as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
00:12:17.040said this afternoon, a catastrophe, but it wasn't. Life and liberty were preserved for Swedes. That
00:12:23.820was what Jay Bhattacharya said. He's actually going to be speaking in the fall at the George
00:12:29.380Jonas Freedom Award dinner in Calgary for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms,
00:12:34.220and I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say. And so the reason that this is so important
00:12:39.800is because I actually would love to not have to talk about COVID.
00:12:43.340I would love if this didn't loom over our heads as much as it does.
00:12:47.380But this is still an issue that is continuing to rear itself.
00:12:51.380For example, I mentioned the court cases in Alberta
00:12:54.100that have had a bit more of a positive outcome.
00:12:57.900But next week, we have Tamara Leach and Chris Barber,
00:13:00.940two of the most prominent faces of the Freedom Convoy,
00:13:03.960going to a criminal trial in Ottawa that is scheduled for 16 days.
00:13:08.240But because there are a couple of breaks in there, it's going to go for the better part of a month.
00:13:13.320And we also have, as always, the possibility that these things that were only ever suspended on the restriction front will be reintroduced.
00:13:21.700But let's talk about some of the better news this week.
00:13:24.800Sarah Miller is a lawyer who has dealt with many civil liberties cases from Alberta.
00:13:29.980And she is with JSS Barristers and returns to the show in just a moment's time here.
00:13:35.120because Sarah is someone who has taken up these cases.
00:13:39.260Now, she's not involved in the whistle-stop case,
00:13:42.460and she's also not involved in any of the cases
00:13:58.720But I still think she has a solid analysis on this.
00:14:02.260And again, I have said time and time again,
00:14:04.460I'm happy to move on from this stuff when they do. So if the other side stops talking about the
00:14:09.720bringing back masks and the other side stops talking about continued prosecutions, then I
00:14:15.580will stop talking about all of the stuff that has been affected by this and all of that. So Sarah
00:14:21.880Miller, good to have you on the show again. Thanks so much for coming back. Hi, Andrew. Good to see
00:14:26.620you. So let's talk first off about this overturning decision. Because when I saw the headline, it was
00:14:32.200like, oh, this is great. You know, we've got some people in Alberta that are, you know, that may
00:14:35.960have just paid the fine to make it go away. They're going to get a refund on it. But there were a lot
00:14:40.400of cases I heard about that were unaffected by this. So what is actually happening here?
00:14:46.100Yeah, so Ingram is a case that was recently decided in Alberta that found the CMOH orders
00:14:53.720were ultra vires or inconsistent with the enabling legislation. So the Public Health Act in Alberta
00:14:59.960is the act that empowers at the time Dr. Hinshaw to make a CMOH order which restricted us and who
00:15:08.200we could interact with how we could interact with them right all of those gathering restrictions
00:15:12.920and Ingram is the case that said those orders that were made during the pandemic were not made
00:15:19.640appropriately and so therefore are essentially um ultra virus act and so that's why everybody was
00:15:29.000excited because it sounds positive. If you're anti COVID lockdown restrictions, it sounds,
00:15:36.360it sounds positive when I summarize it that way. But it sounds like there's a but there.
00:15:42.440So my, my interpretation of this case would say it, I would not interpret it as to be
00:15:49.120really moving the needle very much generally. And if anything, the needle has been moved
00:15:58.980in the direction of strengthening lockdown. So to really understand why that is, you have to look
00:16:08.120at the case that Ingram cites, which is CM. And that case is an Alberta case that came out in
00:16:13.760the fall of 2022. And the applicants in that case wanted masks. So you were just talking about how
00:16:19.780people want masks to come back. Well, the applicants in CM wanted masks, wanted mask
00:16:25.160mandates, they were quite upset that the mask mandates had been removed. And so they applied
00:16:29.300to the court regarding that masking mandate and said, we want those back. And the court looked at
00:16:37.020the information in front of it and the evidence before and said, yeah, okay, you're right. The
00:16:41.600order itself that removed the masking mandate was a public policy decision, not a health decision.
00:16:48.520And so therefore, it's outside of the act, the Public Health Act. So he found in favor, Justice Dunlop at the time, found in favor of the pro-masking group.
00:17:01.160Okay, so then we get Ingram, and Ingram is a lot of individuals who are concerned about the
00:17:06.700restrictions and making an application to the court to say, hey, we don't like these restrictions.
00:17:12.680And the judge in Ingram says, great, I'm going to look at CM. I'm going to look at the evidence
00:17:18.280before me from Dr. Hinshaw's to how these orders were coming about. And the judge finds that
00:17:25.160there's too much interference from cabinet or elected officials and their public policy decisions
00:17:33.280on a health mandate. So what the result of this is, is that now the CMOH, the person in charge
00:17:42.760who's authorized under the Public Health Act to make lockdown measures, doesn't have to listen
00:17:48.920to our public officials. So we elect public officials hopefully to represent us and represent
00:17:53.680our interest. If we elect somebody in Alberta, right, Premier Smith has been elected. And if
00:18:00.120the majority of Albertans want Premier Smith in power, that also probably means that they want
00:18:06.020some of her public policy decisions. Obviously not everything, but some, at least some. And now
00:18:11.940if there's another pandemic, the CMOH does not have to listen to cabinet, does not have to do
00:18:17.200an iterative process with them. And in fact, if the CMOH does take into those public policy decisions,
00:18:22.960um or interest that will be found to be all providers act so it it vests a ton of power
00:18:30.760with our medical officer and essentially tells them they do not have to worry about anything else
00:18:35.340except their health priorities um it removes a balanced approach i would say um in making
00:18:45.420yeah i mean that's a very it's a very sobering analysis because on one hand we can agree with
00:18:51.760the outcome. But as you're noting there, be very worried about the precedent that it will set. And
00:18:57.120I mean, just as an analogous, well, I guess it's not a similar case, but it reminds me of it for
00:19:02.720a reason I'll make clear in a moment. Back in 2022 or whenever it was, when there was the
00:19:09.080conservative leadership race and Jim Carahalios was running and he was disqualified by the party
00:19:14.940and he took the conservative party to court. And the judge said, yeah, you know, the party didn't
00:19:19.580follow its process to disqualify you and we've overturned it. And then the next day, the party
00:19:24.200says, okay, great, now we'll follow the proper process and disqualify you. So it basically
00:19:28.240establishes the way to do this in a way that will be a bit more ironclad. And I am very aware of the
00:19:35.200fact that this was not a case that was decided based on any constitutional implications or any
00:19:41.300freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association. And on those issues, am I to
00:19:46.800understand that not a single court decision has really established that lockdowns and restrictions
00:19:52.780are not saved by Section 1 of the Charter, the reasonable limits part? Yeah, so across the
00:19:59.120country, you know, we have decisions on BC, Manitoba, Alberta included, Ontario, all of the
00:20:06.320courts have essentially found, yes, there might be Section 2 violations, all saved by Section 1.
00:20:11.840And including Ingram in the sense of in the, there was arguments in the alternative to the public health analysis I just gave. And the court provided, you know, half of its decision is in obiter as in the alternative, let's talk about the constitutional issues.
00:20:30.120and the government rightfully so admitted that there was section two violations um and the case
00:20:37.060came down to section one and the court said if if these orders were valid and implemented
00:20:43.240appropriately they would have been saved by section one so uh even though the court didn't
00:20:47.800have to go there it decided to just to make a determination on section one um so it's not
00:20:55.200looking at some of the developments this week i mentioned chris scott with the whistle stop cafe
00:21:01.140we also have james coates of grace life church uh fairview baptist church as well i i i believe
00:21:08.360that was tim stevens if i recall correctly are these cases and the fact that charges have been
00:21:14.080withdrawn here is this flowing from ingram or is there something else going on here yeah so as you
00:21:19.420noted i'm not really involved in those i'm just observing from outside like everyone else but my
00:21:24.580understanding is that is the outcome of ingram so that would be from a constitutional uh perspective
00:21:31.260you know of a pro-libertarian perspective that would be the positive the positives of ingram
00:21:37.140is that it did result in a in this like uncertainty as to whether or not any of the cmoa
00:21:43.600orders were implemented appropriately according to the decision in ingram and since the crown is
00:21:51.220obviously not sure. It seems to me like they've decided to stay or withdraw all of the outstanding
00:21:58.420charges. I know we have coming up next week the criminal trials of Tamara Leach and Chris Barber.
00:22:06.260That's going to be one that we're watching here. But on the civil liberties front, are there any
00:22:10.220particularly novel or unique cases that you're still keeping an eye on that you think could
00:22:14.520actually perhaps have a bit more hope? So I'm not aware of any outstanding right now. There
00:22:22.240may be some in some of the provinces that I don't track. I think that my own case, the
00:22:32.940Pawlowski matter that arose out of the Coutts border protest, is going to continue to be
00:22:43.540interesting. So Mr. Pawelski has been convicted of mischief for speaking at the Coup protest,
00:22:49.740not participating in the protest, but speaking there. And it engages some interesting constitutional
00:22:55.840rights, which tie into COVID in the sense that the Coup protest was related to protesting lockdown.
00:23:04.960And that we anticipate will be the conviction will eventually be appealed. And sentencing
00:23:12.780that's happening later in September. So I think that one will be interesting. I think the CM case
00:23:19.320that I noted earlier, the one where pro-masking groups had applied to the court, that is under
00:23:25.440appeal. So it'll be interesting to see if the court of appeal makes the same determination
00:23:31.380regarding the structure and how a CMOI charter should be issued. But it will obviously be some
00:23:39.420time before that decision is released. Yeah, and I mean, obviously, certainly as a lawyer, you have
00:23:46.440to, you know, keep a level of hope alive. And I think as a Canadian, we all have to keep a level
00:23:50.380of hope alive. And I've heard some people say, oh, yes, and you know, these things will go to
00:23:54.040the Supreme Court. And then I'm like, just read the interviews that the Chief Justice was doing
00:23:58.400about the Freedom Convoy, if you think that the Supreme Court is going into this without its mind
00:24:02.540made up in some way about this. And I think this is the big problem is that we've seen here is that
00:24:07.620once the the jurisprudence as we've seen has basically established that government had the
00:24:12.680latitude to do this uh it's very easy to see how that latitude expands and expands and expands and
00:24:19.280all of a sudden i mean even something as draconian as the emergencies act becomes within the ambit of
00:24:24.400oh well that's you know legislative purview and all that that's the that's government that's them
00:24:28.440their responsibility but when it's flipped and you have governments that are trying to do things to
00:24:33.020restrain its governments on those rare occasions, then all of a sudden the courts are reading so
00:24:38.460much in and saying, oh, no, no, no, we don't give you deference now.
00:24:42.660I have a lot of faith in our Court of Appeals and our Supreme Court in Canada. So to the extent
00:24:49.340that any of these warrant going to the Supreme Court of Canada, and some simply do not, we have
00:24:54.020a very overburdened system. And currently, we don't have lockdowns in place, right? So there
00:24:59.500is a question of mootness that is, I think, legitimate and live as to whether or not these
00:25:04.480should take up very valuable Supreme Court of Canada time. But I do have a lot of faith in our
00:25:10.840Court of Appeal and our Supreme Court. You know, I do think that those that make it to the Court
00:25:17.800of Appeal will have the law applied and interpreted correctly for the most part. And so whether that
00:25:26.660means that, you know, it's always going to land on the side of a more libertarian interpretation,
00:25:32.860maybe not, but as long as we uphold the rule of law, that's the important part.
00:25:36.980All right, Sarah Miller of JSS Barristers, thanks so much for coming on.
00:25:40.800Thank you, Andrew. Have a good evening.
00:25:42.160All right, thank you. And I will just point out on this as well, that when we are talking about
00:25:47.840these cases, if a mask mandate all of a sudden comes down the pipeline again in the winter,
00:25:54.060something that I've gone my entire life without seeing until COVID, and then perhaps twice in the
00:25:59.420span of a few years, I would say it's not moot. And that was the whole point. It's that oftentimes
00:26:03.720government uses mootness, which Sarah mentions is a completely legitimate reason to not hear a case,
00:26:09.460but they use mootness as a way to basically get rid of a case when they're planning to do the
00:26:13.980same thing again. The Leaders Debates Commission, a classic example of this, Rebel and True North
00:26:19.220in 2018, denied accreditation. We take the government to court. We win an injunction.
00:26:24.500We want to follow the case through after the government says it's moot and then turns around
00:26:28.300and in 2021 starts flexing its muscle again and banning some independent journalists, not True
00:26:34.300North that time, from attending and covering the debate. So that's the problem with it is that if
00:26:38.780they're going to say it's moot, we need to hold them to account when they turn around and do the
00:26:42.460same thing that they said was over, was not a live issue and all of that beforehand. So let's
00:26:49.080to talk a little bit about this bizarre, bizarre advisory that the federal government put up
00:26:56.180yesterday for people traveling to the United States. Now, I have traveled to many, many places
00:27:03.000in the world. I've been very privileged just with a combination of the work that I do and
00:27:06.940other opportunities I've had along the way to see different countries. And I've been to places that
00:27:10.980are slightly riskier than others. And I've been to places that have no issue whatsoever. And the
00:27:15.780United States has always been in that latter category. I've never known there to be a travel
00:27:20.480advisory for going to the United States. But now, despite the fact that the US is still seen as a
00:27:26.480green light, a place you can go to relatively safely, the government of Canada has put a
00:27:31.940slight little warning, just a little itty bitty warning there. If you are a member of, and I want
00:27:38.240to get this right. The 2SLGBTQI plus community. The government says that some states have enacted
00:27:46.980laws and policies that may affect 2SLGB. I was reading it. Sean's congratulating me for nailing
00:27:53.160it. I was reading it. I had to like scroll down to the page. I can't do that for memory. I'm just
00:27:57.820like Justin Trudeau when I try to flounder around and find letters. The good news is if you give it
00:28:02.260a couple of years, no matter what letter you say, it's going to be in there. So that'll be the good
00:28:06.980part there. At a certain point, you can just do the whole alphabet and you'll have gotten it
00:28:10.500accurately as long as you throw a two and a plus in. But some states have enacted laws and policies
00:28:15.480that may affect 2SLGBTQI plus persons. Check relevant state and local laws. Now, this is
00:28:22.840relatively nondescript. It's relatively nondescript. It doesn't say, you know, Ron DeSantis in Florida
00:28:28.960is going to like lock you up if you're gay. It doesn't say no trans people are allowed in
00:28:33.180Mississippi or whatever. It just says that you should check local laws. And you may think,
00:28:38.760okay, what's the big deal? Well, it's about the context of where this comes from, because it
00:28:43.480actually clicks through to a link about traveling if you are a member of the, see, now I don't have
00:28:48.860it on my page, so I'm not going to read it again. But if you're a member of that particular group,
00:28:52.620and it's the same page that warns about authoritarian states in which homosexuality
00:28:57.480is criminalized, it's the same page that you're linked to if you are traveling to Saudi Arabia.
00:29:03.180For example, where it is illegal to be gay, it is the same warning that you're going to get about
00:29:09.200countries in which you will literally face prosecution and some potentially horrendous
00:29:14.300outcomes for your sexuality. And it's including that in the same context as the United States.
00:29:19.680Now, this is to me, nothing that is beyond the virtue signaling of the Canadian government on
00:29:26.200foreign policy. This is all they do. It's virtue signaling foreign policy. And it's a way that
00:29:30.800Trudeau can do the same thing he loves to do whenever a court decision in the U.S. comes out
00:29:35.740and takes a pro-life stance. We have to assert ourselves and say, but we're so much more
00:29:40.540progressive than the United States. We're better than those guys. We're safer for gay people. We're
00:29:45.420better for women. We don't have guns. And it's just this constant Canadian superiority complex
00:29:51.200of trying to distance ourselves from this country that we should be relishing as a friend and
00:29:58.060neighbor, but instead like to just completely crap on all day and all night. That is the liberal
00:30:03.740ethos here. And Chrystia Freeland, I won't play the clip because I believe that our numbers do
00:30:09.320plummet quite a bit when I play a Chrystia Freeland clip, but she gave an answer. Well, no, she didn't
00:30:14.020give an answer. She was asked about this yesterday and it was like a two and a half minute long
00:30:19.200answer in which she said nothing at all. Like I kept waiting for the point and the point never
00:30:25.680came. And I wondered, like if you ever watched The Office, the US version, there was this great
00:30:31.380little scene where Steve Carell's character, Michael Scott, was asked a question by his boss
00:30:37.280and he just started going down and he got absolutely nowhere. And he's like, you know,
00:30:41.220never under any circumstances ever for any reason at all, at all, whenever, like, and he just never
00:30:48.820went there. And he said it was an improvisation. He said an improv conversation where you hope
00:30:53.280you'll find it along the way. Well, Chrystia Freeland did the Michael Scott improvisation and
00:30:57.580never found her way there because she couldn't really answer the question of, are you saying
00:31:02.400that the United States is unsafe for gay Canadians? Are you saying the U.S. is unsafe for gay
00:31:07.820Canadians? And she could not answer the question, yet her own government, and she, by the way, used
00:31:13.120to be the foreign affairs minister herself, her own government thought it was fitting to warn
00:31:18.280gay Canadians about going to the U.S. in the same way that it might warn them if they were going to
00:31:24.240Saudi Arabia or Tanzania or some other place. So just completely ridiculous. I'm not even
00:31:31.820concerned about, oh, because Joe Biden has not actually had an alert thought. So he's not going
00:31:36.860to notice this. But surely there could be some conceivable diplomatic blowback on this. And I
00:31:44.180would love it if the United States put up a travel advisory for Canada saying, be careful if you want
00:31:49.620to go there and express your civil liberties. Be careful if you want to go there. Your bank account
00:31:53.780might actually be frozen if you, you know, wave to a trucker as they're driving down the 401. So
00:31:59.840the U.S. should return the favor and in kind start warning about all of these civil liberties
00:32:04.300infractions that you can expect if you are in Canada, certainly if you are a political dissident
00:32:09.240to Justin Trudeau. I started out the show asking if the masking was making a return, and I guess
00:32:16.440I wanted to close by showing a little bit of leadership from a politician I had never heard
00:32:21.660of until today, which was the governor of Mississippi. Now, I had heard of the state of
00:32:25.980Mississippi, but I did not know by name the governor of Mississippi, but he sounds like a
00:32:31.500great guy. Tate Reeves responded to this growing chorus from the so-called experts of a return of
00:32:38.040mask mandates. And he posted a lengthy statement, which I won't read the whole thing of here,
00:32:42.800but he says there was understandable uncertainty when COVID first came. He said, we did not know
00:32:49.640what we were facing. As the months unfolded, it became clear there were two pandemics,
00:32:54.320a disease that was easy to spread and that was deadly for many vulnerable people,
00:32:58.000and a pandemic of fear stoked by the expert class that demanded total subjugation of the
00:33:04.100American people. He goes on to take an aim at those who kept this up with bureaucrats and experts
00:33:10.280seizing power. But he says in unequivocal terms, no, we will not return to widespread masking or
00:33:17.280COVID rules. People have a right to make their own decisions, to decide how much risk they tolerate.
00:33:23.440And no matter what pronouncements come down from the Biden-Fauci administration, we will go to
00:33:27.400school, we will go to church, we will go to work, and we will play sports. We will live in self
00:33:32.860determination, not top-down fear. That is the statement I would like to see from every single
00:33:39.460premier in Canada. I want Danielle Smith to be putting that out. I want Doug, like Doug Ford's
00:33:46.520going to put that out. I want Blaine Higgs to be putting it out. I want Heather Stephenson in
00:33:51.220Manitoba to put it out. I want the premiers, Premier Scott Moe, EB and BC. I want them all
00:33:56.840to put that out. Andrew Fury, put it out. I should not list them all because at a certain point,
00:34:01.300I'm going to like get to the one that I don't know offhand. But I've got like six premiers
00:34:05.060already. That's good enough. I want all of them to put that out and say, no, if you want to wear
00:34:09.180a mask, wear a mask. If you want to get your boosters, get your boosters. If you want to do
00:34:13.020all of this, this is your choice, but we will not impose it. Never again will we go down the road
00:34:19.400of locking down our citizens because of fear. Fear that as time has shown has not been founded