On this week's episode of The Andrew Lawton Show, Andrew talks about his recent trip to a coffee shop with his family, and how he managed to survive it. He also talks about the vaccine mandate in British Columbia, and why it might not be as bad as it sounds.
00:00:58.760No, that's from June 8th, so that doesn't actually give me proof of life.
00:01:03.100So you just have to take my word for it when I say it is July 19th and I am here and alive.
00:01:07.880And according to my Apple Watch, I'm not even wearing my eyes, so even the Apple Watch can't give me proof of life.
00:01:13.620My goodness, this is just a great intro to hopefully a show that can only go up from here.
00:01:19.100We're going to talk a little bit later on in the program about the one province that seems to be clinging to its vaccine mandate more than anywhere else.
00:01:28.300And if you live in British Columbia, you know I am talking about you, but it is in fact BC, which still has a horrendous vaccine mandate in place for its health care workers.
00:01:38.860Now, I should say, it's not the only mandate remaining. There are little pockets of this.
00:01:44.060There's actually a township not far from me in southwestern Ontario that has one as well.
00:01:49.620But BC is one of the most sweeping, I'd say.
00:01:54.040And despite the fact that the health care system is across the country still suffering from gaps in employment because they can't seem to find people, perhaps they shouldn't have fired all the nurses and other workers that they needed.
00:02:06.040But I also want to talk a little bit about this strange discourse that's taken hold online in which the so-called experts, in this case the Laurentian elites, have a very different view of Canadian democracy compared to ordinary Canadians.
00:02:24.000And I'm going to try to not get too into the weeds here, but it's an important discussion because we have in Canada a Westminster parliamentary system, which means, in effect, that elections are not the sole determinant or technically not the determinant at all of who becomes prime minister.
00:02:40.860It is the composition of the House of Commons that decides that.
00:02:44.400There is no technical role for the prime minister as a byproduct of Canadian elections.
00:02:50.260So theoretically, all of the members of Parliament could be elected and the MPs could get there on the first day and say, you know, we think Cheryl Gallant should be Prime Minister, not Justin Trudeau, not Pierre Polyev, Cheryl Gallant.
00:03:06.280They could say, oh, Nikki Ashton, yeah, the NDP MP Nikki Ashton, she's the Prime Minister.
00:03:12.460Now, are they going to do either of these things? No.
00:03:14.920But technically, members of Parliament could do that.
00:03:18.060Now, this is something that we know exists.
00:03:20.420We know there are non-confidence motions.
00:03:22.400We know that parliamentarians can get together and oust a prime minister,
00:03:27.120as a lot of people have been desperately hoping Jagmeet Singh will find a spine to do with Justin Trudeau.
00:03:40.500They can't find any nurses to give Jagmeet Singh his spinal transplant.
00:03:44.340So he's just limping around there, like flopping over.
00:03:46.960Hopefully one day he'll be able to stand erect, but it hasn't happened yet.
00:03:50.740The reason I bring all of this up is because it's always Andrew Coyne on this issue, by the way.
00:03:55.860This is like one of his number one go-to issues.
00:03:59.680Andrew Coyne wrote a column a few weeks ago in which he stated what is technically a correct point.
00:04:05.420It is a technically correct point based on the letter of the law and the unwritten convention
00:04:11.160that there is a coming crisis of legitimacy in federal politics.
00:04:15.620That's not the one. That's not the one. That's the one he wrote yesterday, which is I'll get to in a second here. But I bring this up because he was saying that you could lose the election and continue to govern, that Justin Trudeau could lose the election to the conservatives and say, you know what, the NDP is going to keep backing us. So we're just going to keep on going.
00:04:36.320And this is something that the Laurentian elite think is an entirely appropriate course of action
00:04:42.760because it fits the letter of what is constitutional in Canada.
00:04:48.100Philippe Lagasse, who's again, I have no issues with Philippe,
00:04:52.320but he is like the most technical guy when it comes to his analysis.
00:04:57.520And he's very right. He knows his stuff.
00:05:29.980And that when they vote for the local conservative or the local liberal or the local PPC or the local bloc, that they're actually voting for the person they think is going to be prime minister.
00:05:41.800Even though Justin Trudeau's name is not on the ballot in London West, or AS is a real riding name, they still know that the stakes of the election are such that they're voting for or against candidates that are in the running for prime minister.
00:05:58.540So when people come along and start to tell people that actually your votes don't matter,
00:18:04.080Right. Thanks for having me, Andrew. Yes, the mandate is still in place for the
00:18:09.280BC healthcare workers. So any healthcare worker who is employed by a BC health authority
00:18:16.960is still required to show proof of having taken two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine
00:18:22.800in order to be able to work. So this new order that Dr. Bonnie Henry issued on July the 14th,
00:18:29.760just this past Friday, essentially cancels an order that she made on June 10th, 2022,
00:18:36.320about a year ago, that required regulated healthcare workers to provide proof of vaccination
00:18:42.560to their colleges. So really, that order impacted those in private practice, not those that were
00:18:53.120employed by a BC health authority. So that's very significant. So cancelling that order means that
00:19:00.800those regulated healthcare workers in private practice do not have to show or do not have to
00:19:11.040provide proof of vaccination to their colleges. So it doesn't impact our lawsuit. So I'm one of
00:19:17.360of the lawyers on a lawsuit in which we're representing 11 BC healthcare workers who
00:19:24.580were fired for not having taken the vaccine. So that, that lawsuit is continuing and we have
00:19:31.080trial dates set for November of this year. Now just to, how do they define vaccinated? Are they,
00:19:38.120is it a two dose definition or a booster definition? It's a two dose definition. There
00:19:43.380was some confusion in April of 2023. So April 6, Dr. Bonnie Henry issued two new orders and we call
00:19:52.060them the hospital and community care order and the residential care order. And there was some
00:19:57.700confusion because people thought that she was changing it to require or changing the definition
00:20:05.160of fully vaccinated to mean three doses, but in fact, that's not accurate. Those April 6, 2023
00:20:15.240orders, they still only require two doses of the vaccine. The order talks a lot about the booster
00:20:25.000and encourages people to get the booster and talks about how good the booster is,
00:20:32.360but it doesn't require it. And those orders also essentially captured two new groups of workers,
00:20:42.120not even healthcare workers, but those workers that enter health facilities such as construction
00:20:50.520workers and occasional workers who do not have contact with patients. So before the April 6th
00:20:56.600orders were granted those two groups of workers did not if they did not show proof of vaccination
00:21:03.480they had to physically distance and wear masks so that was an exemption in those orders it wasn't
00:21:10.600called an exemption but it it was that they were allowed to enter facilities without
00:21:15.160showing proof of vaccination and now that's those that's taken out of the orders so now those two
00:21:21.880groups of workers are included. Just to talk about the doses for a moment here, this is so
00:21:28.200absurd because even if you take the government's own messaging around vaccine efficacy at face
00:21:34.300value, which I think is fraught with challenges, but a healthcare worker who got their first dose
00:21:39.440in December of 2020 and maybe their second dose in, say, February of 2021 has gone two and a half
00:21:48.320years without ever receiving any dose whatsoever of vaccine which means the effectiveness of that
00:21:56.620vaccine again to use the government's own narrative is zero neck is literally nothing so the idea that
00:22:02.620that is a requirement to work in health care is absurd when if you got vaccinated in january of
00:22:10.8402021 or 2022 even, you are less protected than an unvaccinated person who got COVID a month ago is.
00:22:20.060Yes, and that is one of our arguments for sure. So what has the government done, if anything,
00:22:26.720in its submissions or in public comments to push back against this, to basically defend
00:22:32.300the science of its mandate? Well, they're still repeating the same mantra, which is that
00:22:39.400um it the the vaccine is is is safe and effective and you know essentially they're silent on
00:22:48.540I mean I guess they say they say two things they do acknowledge that um the vaccine efficacy wears
00:22:57.180off over time or wanes quickly really but at the same time they say that um it reduces symptoms
00:23:05.860symptoms and that having two doses is certainly better than being unvaccinated. But yes, you
00:23:12.860should get a booster as well. So those are the types of things that they say. I saw, I can't
00:23:18.680remember the exact number, but I know that the BC Nurses Union just a couple of months ago was
00:23:23.340talking about the nursing shortages in BC. And the problem was the ratio of healthcare workers to
00:23:29.660patients was concerning and ultimately leading to a lack of adequate patient care. So here we have
00:23:37.020a government that is preventing people from working in its healthcare system. Well, the people
00:23:42.820in that system who are vaccinated, who've gone through the protocols are saying, hey, we need
00:23:47.760more staff. Oh, yes, absolutely. And I mean, you'll hear Adrienne Dix say, you know, talk about how
00:23:55.560they're bringing in workers from overseas and they have a plan to increase the health care workers
00:24:02.280by, you know, certain numbers. But yeah, I mean, the fact is that there is a serious health care
00:24:09.700shortage and they talk about how they're going to fix it, but it's still, you know, a real problem.
00:24:17.760What is the basis of the argument here? Because I know there's always been a bit of a question about
00:24:22.540the best avenue to challenge some of these mandates, whether it's on constitutional grounds
00:24:28.200or through other means. So what's the, if you can, as much as you can divulge anyway,
00:24:32.800what's the strategy that you're taking with your challenges?
00:24:35.860Yes, well, part of the challenge is based on constitutional grounds, that it's a violation
00:24:41.000of constitutional rights. So yeah, so that's one basis. But, you know, we're also looking at
00:24:46.480of challenging the science. So the efficacy of the vaccine, and also adverse reactions and things
00:24:57.220like that. So we're looking at the science, and we're definitely incorporating that into our
00:25:00.680argument. One of the big things that and this has come up when we've talked about vaccine mandates
00:25:07.400in other sectors as well, whether it's the federal public service vaccine, or the airline employee
00:25:13.040vaccine and whatever the case is that you know there are a few different categories of people
00:25:17.560here there are those who say you know what i'm not going along with this and therefore they lose
00:25:22.060their job or they get laid off or fired they're victims of this i i would also say the people that
00:25:27.080that get vaccinated against their will to keep their job are victims of of this as well and and
00:25:34.840i don't know how you quantify that number but there's a large group here of people that were
00:25:39.140literally coerced into this and are still being coerced into this because uh this is the only
00:25:43.520way they get to do what for many of them has been a lifelong a lifelong calling working in health
00:25:48.660care yes so yes it very it does look like coercion absolutely but the government's answer to that is
00:25:58.760it's a choice it's still a choice you're not it's actually not a mandate is what they're saying
00:26:03.760it's a choice. So, I mean, it really looks like coercion. But technically, it's still a choice.
00:26:16.500And the thing is, is that the right to work is not protected under the Constitution.
00:26:24.980How were, how have the, I mean, I'm assuming I know the answer to this, but I'm curious to hear
00:26:30.240the way you describe it here. How have the hospitals, how has the healthcare system been
00:26:36.300on exemptions? Because I know that technically, people can claim a religious exemption or a
00:26:42.540medical exemption to these things under human rights laws, but I know that these have been
00:26:46.420next to impossible for people to get reliably in other provinces when they've had these mandates
00:26:52.060in place. Well, so the orders actually do not allow for any exemption other than a medical
00:26:59.140exemption so naughty they don't even allow the religious uh conscientious exemption wow no no
00:27:05.060that's right and the medical exemption really is just the the criteria is it's just such a narrow
00:27:12.020um exemption that essentially nobody qualifies you know so um the exemptions require that you
00:27:21.060either have to have taken one dose i mean there's there's a whole list but essentially you have to
00:27:26.900to have taken a dose and been um you know had a severe allergic reaction almost died you know
00:27:34.280gotten really ill from the first dose and and the exemptions really are not true exemptions
00:27:41.300they're really just deferrals so very few people have qualified just to drill into that point so
00:27:48.120someone could have a very good relationship with their family doctor and the family doctor could be
00:27:53.040very pro-vaccine and say, you know, in your case, I think you might have an issue with this vaccine
00:27:59.140because of X. And that person might actually have to go through that issue before that medical
00:28:06.020advice qualifies them for an exemption. Well, yes. And first they have to go to an allergist
00:28:11.060to get that opinion. And the thing is also is many medical professionals were very reluctant to
00:28:18.340get involved and to provide those kinds of letters requesting exemptions. So it's very difficult.
00:28:26.020Yeah, very difficult for people to obtain that exemption. I don't have much time for the BC
00:28:33.700Human Rights Tribunal, but I know that it is a body that does have a fair bit of power on these
00:28:39.360things. So how has it not become involved in this when you have exemptions that, as I understand,
00:28:45.780should be protected under human rights law at least that aren't being respected by the mandate
00:28:51.780yeah i don't know of any um cases at present that are being handled yeah interesting and again i i
00:29:00.180mean the the challenge with that body is that i i feel it more often works against individual
00:29:05.220choice than for it but uh from what you had just said which i i didn't know that the bc mandates
00:29:10.820for healthcare workers don't even allow for the human rights exemptions that other provinces
00:29:15.700at least claim to. I found that quite shocking. So just looking forward here, I mean, we've seen
00:29:21.620in some of the COVID cases that have come up in different provinces, a fair bit of deference from
00:29:27.460courts to governments. And I'm wondering if you're expecting in BC to have a similar challenge afoot,
00:29:34.700or if maybe the courts in British Columbia have been somewhat better on this in your view.
00:29:38.560I don't think so, no. The courts have been pretty consistent across Canada in
00:29:43.760deferring to the government and the government science. So just a little bit more about our case.
00:29:53.520Many of our petitioners were administrative workers or who worked remotely anyway,
00:29:58.640not even due to the pandemic. And so one of our arguments is that the orders are overbroad
00:30:06.560because they are impacting you know so these these workers were fired for not taking the vaccine and
00:30:13.360yet they worked in administrative positions and or so they weren't at a risk of infecting a patient
00:30:20.240which is basically the argument the government used to justify these things that's right explain
00:30:26.320to me if you can and i i mean i know it's difficult to explain the the inexplicable but
00:30:30.720But how the government has, to back up here, what it seems like is that the government is trying to filter out a type of person that it doesn't want working for it more than it's trying to prevent against any risk.
00:30:45.680And I'm wondering if I'm being perhaps too cynical there, or if that would align with your perspective on this, having now studied this file so extensively.
00:30:54.420Yeah, I would agree with that. Yeah, they want a certain type of worker. Yeah.
00:30:58.520So in this particular case, you have a mandate that really serves to just say, you know, you're either on this side of the debate or you're on this side of the debate.