Juno News - Could vaccine mandates return for air travel？ (ft. Eva Chipiuk)

00:00:00.000 you're tuned in to the andrew lawton show

00:00:05.920 now this may seem like a bit of a distant memory right now because it has been a couple of years

00:00:14.240 since this was first floated it was something that justin trudeau promised in the 2021 election

00:00:19.760 remember this you deserve a government that's going to continue to say get vaccinated and you

00:00:26.780 know what if you don't want to get vaccinated that's your choice but don't think you can get

00:00:32.700 on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk

00:00:37.280 yeah he didn't just advocate for this policy or implement it justin trudeau campaigned on this he

00:00:46.920 actually went to voters and said i would like to bar the unvaccinated from planes and trains and 1.00

00:00:54.200 federally regulated workplaces you couldn't work as a bureaucrat in the federal department of

00:01:00.600 widgets unless you were vaccinated against covid that was obviously a winning proposition justin

00:01:06.380 trudeau emerged victorious in that election and proceeded with the policy and later the even more

00:01:11.880 punitive policy of requiring vaccination from truckers to cross the border back and forth

00:01:18.400 between canada and the united states but one of the things that i will point out about this is that the

00:01:23.780 federal government had these mandates they escalated them they did them in spite of scientific evidence

00:01:29.940 and data arguing against them science and data saying that these things were not actually necessary

00:01:36.160 we're not keeping people out of the hospital we're not saving lives but the federal government persisted

00:01:41.560 anyway so there was a challenge put forward by a number of different people one of them was former

00:01:47.000 newfoundland premier brian peckford one of them was the leader of the people's party of canada maxime

00:01:52.660 bernier now bernier in particular had a very interesting approach to this his case was not

00:01:58.220 just i'm a canadian that wants to go and see grandma he was saying listen i'm a federal politician

00:02:03.460 part of my job is to crisscross the country and speak to canadians this law is preventing me from

00:02:11.600 doing something that is fundamental to democracy into the democratic process so that was the argument

00:02:18.460 that was put forward now the legal process is very slow at times it took some time for this case to go

00:02:25.140 before the federal court by the time it did the federal government had already rescinded the mandate

00:02:31.200 now the language they used was that it was suspended it wasn't over it wasn't done they didn't say

00:02:37.840 we're sorry we shouldn't have done this we're never going to do it again they said we're suspending it

00:02:42.160 and we might bring it back and there was also another press conference where the government

00:02:45.920 started talking about reworking its definition of fully vaccinated so it might have actually been

00:02:51.900 the case where you had to be boosted within a certain period of time to travel so all of that is

00:02:57.860 important context to the federal government's argument that we shouldn't even have a court case on

00:03:03.660 this we shouldn't even hear this argument it is moot which is to say that it's not a live issue

00:03:09.240 this is what's at stake the federal court said it's moot there's no point in hearing this the

00:03:13.400 mandate's over that was the discussion that went towards the federal court of appeal yesterday which

00:03:19.240 now has the decision to make about whether they should actually have a hearing on the merits of

00:03:24.960 this mandate in the first place eva chipiuk knows this file well she joins me now a lawyer with 0.94

00:03:30.440 chipiuk law eva good to talk to you again thanks for coming on today my pleasure thanks for having

00:03:35.560 me now i mean obviously when we put the word moot in our stories we put it in quotation marks because

00:03:41.480 it's a term that has a meaning in law and i think has a reason in law but it's one that i i think has

00:03:47.180 been very convenient for the government here because anytime they've had an issue that they don't want

00:03:52.420 to really have it answered in court they do this and oftentimes with alarming success even the

00:03:58.440 emergencies act the federal government has said oh well i mean the emergencies act is over now

00:04:02.960 nothing to see here it's all moot so it's not surprising they've tried that here but it's

00:04:07.740 concerning that the courts have so far gone along with it very much agree with you on that and those

00:04:13.840 were the arguments that of course the lawyers were making in court and um at the first instance uh i

00:04:20.060 recall one of i thought the most powerful arguments that at least keith wilson brought forward is

00:04:25.480 what are the other option for canadians that do you want to see them back in odawa with in a protest

00:04:32.340 this is the forum to resolve these issues and these disputes especially issues that are this

00:04:38.620 contentious and this polarized and and political in fact um so we're seeing these battles on twitter

00:04:46.820 wouldn't it be a more sophisticated place to have this evidence heard and open to the public

00:04:52.780 in an established forum like the court system so public interest is a huge point on it and so i can't

00:05:01.260 see how they suggest that it's not in the public interest so you know i i think you probably saw in

00:05:07.820 some of the tweets that 20 000 people were registered to watch that hearing yesterday that appeal i don't

00:05:15.720 i doubt that that's ever happened in canadian history before so just on that fact alone it shows what

00:05:21.640 an intense amount of public interest there is yes and i mean the one thing that the lawyers have mentioned

00:05:28.420 both at the federal court level and in the appeal hearing yesterday also was that the government's own

00:05:34.280 language suggests this was just a suspension they've not taken it off the table they've not said

00:05:39.120 we'll never do it again and that's where i think the mootness argument kind of falls flat here because

00:05:44.640 if you follow this through to its natural conclusion anytime the federal government does something on a

00:05:50.500 temporary basis they can dodge accountability because they say well the fact scenario is different

00:05:56.460 there's no point in having this discussion again there's no point in litigating the old one because

00:06:01.380 when we bring the new one in it's going to be different than a live issue and it basically means that

00:06:06.140 there will never be a ruling on what is really a core constitutional question did this violate your

00:06:11.360 mobility rights as a canadian who was not able to travel yeah i was just trying to take some notes

00:06:16.720 because of so many things always come up but uh a hundred percent um so one of the the government

00:06:23.340 was definitely painting the picture that the suspension the word suspension doesn't really mean

00:06:28.400 anything it was rescinded in the end because it expired so what many canadians actually don't know

00:06:34.920 it was an interim order um that continuously expired every two weeks so if it didn't expire they would

00:06:43.700 renew it um and so they're kind of like well it expired so it's gone and there's that's it whether

00:06:50.320 it's suspended or rescinded would be a more appropriate word it's not effective in law anymore

00:06:55.400 so that means it's not law but one of the points that was made yesterday which i also think is very

00:07:01.620 important is because they were these were interim orders they weren't debated in the house of commons

00:07:06.600 and in the open public forum so a decision like that maybe that's where the court should say okay

00:07:15.980 let's let's dissect this a little bit more because when there's like a year or two of public debate and

00:07:22.800 everyone can have their say on it and that that seems more democratic a better use of everyone's time

00:07:28.140 if that's the kind of law we were challenging then maybe i see the point but in this case it was like

00:07:34.580 all these uh very reactionary um responses on a short-term basis maybe that doesn't make sense let's

00:07:42.180 just talk about these let's debate this as adults and as people that have questions on this so for many

00:07:49.400 reasons that didn't really make sense uh and so those were some of the points that were made yesterday

00:07:54.340 and uh one thing that's very important to note is on the first instance the federal court judge said

00:08:01.140 well you know it's not live it's not an active law now but if it is you're welcome to come back to court

00:08:06.620 this is after all the parties have put in a lot of time and effort and canadians have either donated

00:08:14.360 um through uh charitable organizations that were involved in this or directly so you're just asking

00:08:20.980 citizens and canadians to continuously front a challenge to the government i like i don't think

00:08:26.100 that's the appropriate use of anyone's time or funds or canadians should be asked of that anyway

00:08:32.500 well and i would also jump on that point because i think that's an important one eva which is that

00:08:37.240 one of the core arguments behind courts using mootness and finding mootness is that uh judicial

00:08:43.340 resources are scarce there's a cost and an effort and a time that it takes to litigate a case

00:08:49.220 i would argue that hearing the case once and for all actually takes fewer judicial resources than

00:08:56.820 hearing it every year or every two years or every three years if something like this is reintroduced

00:09:02.280 i mean we are a legal system that is based on precedent and you can't actually have uh common

00:09:08.420 law unless you hear the cases that are going to form the precedent for how the law is in the future

00:09:13.700 the mental gymnastics andrew have been interesting because what the courts uh at the first instance

00:09:19.700 said and then the questions from the court judges yesterday were similar uh or at least one was is

00:09:27.140 well the science at that time was what it was so how can we if even if we address it now if this

00:09:34.180 comes back in a year or two the science is going to be different so this is going to be a waste of

00:09:38.820 everybody's time and that goes against exactly what you were saying the rule of law precedence in

00:09:45.540 canada it's always fact specific facts are going to always um massage a case a little bit one way

00:09:52.660 or the other but the reasoning behind it that's the reason that everyone's in court was the reasoning

00:10:00.740 behind the government's decisions and the mandates even whether the interim orders make sense or

00:10:05.140 whatever none of that is being discussed or debated of course the science is going to be different

00:10:10.180 probably will be all be more knowledgeable if this ever came forward again but it's not on the

00:10:16.180 scientific points only that the court is being asked to hear this case so it was very concerning

00:10:22.820 to hear that in the first instance and then again yesterday i i've told this story on the show many

00:10:28.260 many times so bear with me if you're one of the members of the audience that have heard it but

00:10:31.940 in 2019 when the leaders debates commission barred true north and rebel from covering the debate we

00:10:37.700 went to federal court we secured an injunction and we were able to go and cover the debate and then

00:10:43.060 after the debate we wanted to proceed with the case because we thought there was a big problem here

00:10:48.020 of a government body arbitrarily deciding which journalists can and can't have access to

00:10:53.300 government-run events and the court said as it did in the vaccine mandate case well the debate's over

00:10:57.860 you got what you wanted there's really no point in hearing this because there's never going to be

00:11:02.420 another debate yeah and then you fast forward to 2021 literally the identical thing happens in this

00:11:08.660 case not with us we were accredited but rebel uh experienced the same thing and they went before the

00:11:13.940 court and the same government said this is mood it's it's kind of an academic point it doesn't really

00:11:18.260 matter did the same thing and they started from zero again so i i think that you know there is a very

00:11:23.860 real uh debate to be had here again i mean if they have a trial on the facts and on the merits it may

00:11:29.220 not go the way that mr peckford and mr bernier and all of them want it to but at the very least they

00:11:35.220 should be heard and and the con the government should be forced to defend the constitutionality

00:11:39.940 of this which right now it hasn't been forced to do has it yeah no and your example is a perfect

00:11:46.420 highlight of judicial economy um how it doesn't make sense to bring this to court again and especially

00:11:52.580 when so many resources were spent already um with all the parties um three months like at least it

00:12:00.900 was months and months of already since the since the case was started but it was at least two months

00:12:07.460 of daily cross-examinations which is a massive endeavor and so the actual court case was scheduled

00:12:14.580 for three days that's not a huge amount of time considering the huge issues at stake and like i said

00:12:22.180 um the public interest the polarity all of that stuff i think it was three maybe five days um but

00:12:28.020 to ask all the parties to just start all over again and then maybe we'll listen to it but then why

00:12:32.980 wouldn't we be in the same position again then why wouldn't the court make the same arguments again

00:12:38.340 yeah very very well said your coverage of this on twitter has been quite good not just for people in

00:12:44.340 who know the law but especially for people that aren't lawyers you've explained the issues very

00:12:48.580 well eva chibiuk always a pleasure thanks for coming on today thanks for having me thanks for

00:12:53.300 listening to the andrew lawton show support the program by donating to true north at www.tnc.news

Juno News - October 14, 2023

Could vaccine mandates return for air travel？ (ft. Eva Chipiuk)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript